Whether an act of damaging another person's materials installed in a factory to remodel a successful factory building without due process constitutes a crime of causing property damage (affirmative)

When the defendant unilaterally removes materials owned by the victim, such as demanding the victim to remove the materials installed in the factory when he/she alters the low temperature storage factory of low temperature agricultural and fishery products at the low temperature, among buildings of low temperature storage of agricultural and fishery products at the auction, without taking lawful measures, it cannot be said that there was no intention to commit the damage of property, and this cannot be said to be naturally permitted under the social norms.

Articles 20 and 366 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Young-ho

Daegu District Court Decision 89No1709 delivered on February 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the fact finding of the court below is justified, and the defendant ordered the victim's unauthorized crime to remove the goods (the goods excluded from the successful bid) installed in the warehouse No. 2, but the above victim's facilities installed in the warehouse No. 1 and installed in the warehouse No. 2, since they go beyond value and necessary, it cannot be neglected to remove and preserve the goods, and it is not acknowledged by the court below. However, even if the defendant did not unilaterally remove the goods which the above victim removed and stored in the warehouse No. 2, it cannot be said that there was no legitimate reason to recognize the removal of the goods, such as the removal of the goods which the above victim could not be permitted to alter the air-conditioning warehouse into the water cooling, even if there was no legitimate reason to acknowledge the removal or damage of the goods by the defendant as a matter of course.

The precedent of the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below from the opposite position.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)