beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around 13:00 on April 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) removed the iron gate owned by D, the complainant in the land owned by the Defendant, as a result of the boundary restoration survey; and (b) removed existing houses from Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, about its utility.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant consistently asserted from an investigative agency to this court that “The Defendant only used a steel gate in the process of removing an existing house and did not have an intention to destroy and damage property.”
B. Each statement was made in D, E’s investigative agency and court as shown in the facts charged of the instant case, but the above statements were directly supported by the Defendant’s intentional act on property damage, on the ground that “The fence of the Defendant’s house owned by the Defendant was attached with the iron gate owned by the complainant, and there was a dispute over the ownership of the land in which the steel gate was located. However, in the process of the removal of the Defendant house, the iron gate was written in the process of the removal of the land in which the steel gate was located. The Defendant’s attempt to run another gate, but cannot be deemed to have been returned to the original state.”
C. However, the witness F, who was in charge of the removal construction, stated that “In the process of removing the fence attached to the Defendant’s wall and the fence attached to it, the steel gate was in excess of the steel gate as the connecting part of the steel gate and the pole fells in the process of removing the fence. The Defendant was aware that the steel gate was not owned by the Defendant at the time of requesting the removal of the fence, etc. from the Defendant, but, in the process of removing the fence by means of vibration on the wall, the steel gate was old and a corner was part of the corner.”
In addition to the fact that the defendant newly installed another gate after the writing of the steel gate, the defendant intentionally uses the steel gate on the sole basis that there was a dispute over the land between the defendant and the complainant.