(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노1588

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노1588

재물손괴

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as the manager of the apartment of this case, installed a steel gate so that the victim D could not access the public stairs and the public rooftop, which are escape facilities, by abusing the position of the owner of the building, and installed the personal card key on the elevator without permission. As such, in order to prevent the infringement of the residents’ lives, bodies, and property when a fire or emergency situation occurs, the Defendant removed the card camera as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below. Thus, even though the Defendant’s act constitutes an emergency escape or a legitimate act, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to emergency escape or a justifiable act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to which part of the facts charged was changed in the trial of the party, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the specific contents of the crime, and the situation at the time of the crime, the means and method, etc., recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in its determination of the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act to avoid the present danger, which constitutes an urgent escape, or an act that does not contravene the social norms, and thus, the Defendant’

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.10.12 2018노1462

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.15 2017노981

-전주지방법원 2018.05.30 2017노1849

-수원지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노5405

-수원지방법원 2016.05.20 2015노6825