logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2019.01.21 2018고정257
재물손괴
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. At around 10:00 on November 8, 2017, the Defendant: “A victim C operated by Tong Young-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), “A fine of KRW 700,000 has been imposed due to his/her complaint,” and “A victim would have to pay a fine,” and the Defendant entered the office to “Adra, I would not pay the money,” and thereby, damaged the Defendant’s door by opening a door a door of KRW 300,000 at the market price owned by the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial of relevant legal principles, the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(Supreme Court Decision 92Do327 delivered on March 23, 1993). B.

The evidence supporting the facts charged of the instant case lies in the statement of the complainant C in this court and the investigative agency, and the entrance pictures attached to the accusation by the complainant C. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, each of the complainant C’s statements is difficult to believe, and the entrance pictures alone cannot be readily concluded to have been destroyed by the Defendant’s act.

Therefore, the witness C’s legal statement and evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The complainant C consistently stated the part related to the destruction of the entrance door, which is the facts charged of the instant case, and on the contrary, the Defendant also rejected the entrance door from being set off to the point of view, etc. However, the complainant C is at the scene of around 10:17 a.m. on the day of the instant case.

arrow