(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.11 2018고정1151

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.11 2018고정1151

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 6, 2018, around 09:50 on January 6, 2018, the Defendant removed reading center 25,000 won at the market price established in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. D, the victim owner, through E, the key business operator, and damaged it.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Investigation report (to hear the F statements of witnesses);

1. Two copies of a lease contract and a written confirmation of the return of deposit for the accused in the prosecution examination report against the accused [the accused and the defense counsel claim that the owner of the building and reading center in the judgment of the accused is the accused. The accused, around 1995, has constructed a reconstruction work of the existing wooden floor building owned by the victim with the 4th floor building in the current brick in the 1995, and the fact that the accused and the injured party occupy the 4th floor does not conflict between the accused and the injured party: Provided, That the accused and the defense counsel claimed that the reconstruction work was conducted under the condition that the injured party can reside in the 1st floor of the reconstruction building, but the injured party claimed that he used the 1st floor office of the reconstruction building in lieu of the payment of the remainder of the construction cost.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including the above investigation report, the victim paid the defendant a part of the construction cost, which is KRW 28 million on February 10, 1996, and KRW 28 million on February 14, 1996, and KRW 56 million on the aggregate, and the victim entered into a previous lease agreement on the building No. D or the same building No. and paid a monthly rent to the victim. This is inconsistent with the victim's assertion and contradictory to the defendant's assertion.

In full view of these circumstances, the defendant and the defense counsel's above assertion are accepted as credibility of the victim's statement.

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2019.12.18 2019노500

-서울남부지방법원 2018.03.16 2017가단224078

-광주지방법원 2019.07.23 2019고단984

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.25 2015가합545857

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.25 2015가합549415