(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.22 2013노3281 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2015.12.22 2013노3281

주거침입등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Although the court below denied the admissibility of evidence of the above written statement and written statement and the defendant's assertion itself, it accepted only the defendant's defense, and acquitted the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to facts charged in the judgment of evidence beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, due to misconception of facts or errors in the preparation of evidence.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant: (a) substantially manages the 8th floor of Asia-si; (b) operates the Domoel from the 4th floor of the said building; (c) around May 7, 2012, the Defendant leased the 6th floor of the said building to the victim E with the payment of KRW 3 million deposit, KRW 1.5 million monthly and monthly management expenses; and (d) around December 2012, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the operation of the victim on the ground that the son was unpaid water and electricity charges; (b) went into the said F for the purpose of inspecting the facilities; (c) prevented the victim from having access to the said F; and (d) damaged the property owned by the victim by removing the locked from the locked at the same time and at the same place; and (c) installing other locks.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment held that the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant prepared by the assistant judicial police officer is inadmissible as evidence because the Defendant did not recognize the content while denying the facts of crime, and thus cannot be admitted as evidence, and each protocol of interrogation and written statement of E prepared by the assistant judicial police officer cannot be admitted as evidence, since the Defendant did not consent to the admissibility of evidence, and the authenticity of establishment was not recognized by the original person’s statement, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence, and even if all other evidences submitted by the prosecutor are combined, it is insufficient to acknowledge the

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.12.19 2013고정632

-대법원 1990. 6. 26. 선고 90도827 판결

-청주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015노519

-대법원 2011. 6. 30. 선고 2009도6717 판결

-대법원 1982. 12. 28. 선고 82도1080 판결