logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.02.19 2013고정2069
재물손괴
Text

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant B

A. On July 20, 201, the Defendant, on July 20, 201, destroyed the notice of guidance equivalent to KRW 6,000 of the market price by removing the tape on the bottom of the notice, setting up part of the tape, etc., on the elevator with 105, 3-5 Ra, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, and on the elevator with 105, 3-5 Ra, the Defendant posted a notice informing to the residents in relation to heating works, such as victim F, etc.

B. The Defendant above A.

At around 21:45, the above guidance notice was teared in an elevator with the above apartment 105 dong 6-7 dong 105, and continuously damaged the above guidance notice at around 22:37 on the following day. In addition, at around 22:37, the above guidance notice was partially teared, and the above guidance notice was destroyed at a level equivalent to 6,000 won at the market price.

2. On July 20, 2013, at around 15:04, the Defendant: (a) removed the notice from the elevator with the above apartment 105-dong 6-7 square meters; and (b) destroyed the above notice at the market price of KRW 6,000, which is located on the floor of the elevator.

3. On July 22, 2013, Defendant A: (a) around 09:34, on an elevator with the above apartment 106-dong 1-2 Ra of the above apartment, Defendant A removed the above notice from tear, and destroyed the above notice at a level equivalent to KRW 6,000 at the market price left on the floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendants’ act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, since the Defendants posted the above guidance notice at a place other than the bulletin board capable of attaching the notice, even though they were not the decision-making authority entitled to resolve the individual heating conversion work.

The dispute between the Defendants and the heating System Promotion Committee is about the status of heating System Promotion Committee.

arrow