(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노299

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노299

재물손괴

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as a general secretary of the B shopping mall, removed a signboard attached to the entrance of a commercial building at the request of the merchants for the removal of the signboard at the low fluorily, and thus, did not damage it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant recognized the following facts: (a) the Defendant: (b) had engaged in the arche construction business for not less than 20 years using the trade name “D” in B; (c) newly opened a shop engaging in the arche construction business in B in B; and (d) attached three signboards on the entrance of the commercial building, including “E” on the entrance; and (c) the entrance was originally attached by the Defendant’s “D”; (d) the Defendant posted the signboard at the entrance; (c) the Defendant removed all of the entrance signboards; and (d) the Defendant did not notify C of the removal of the signboard at the time.

In other words, C is not allowed to affix a signboard on the commercial entrance because the above recognized facts and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence are already attached to three shops, including the Defendant’s store.

In light of the following: (a) it is difficult to see that C operates a store in a commercial building; and (b) it is difficult to request the Defendant to cooperate with C to remove the signboard; (c) the Defendant immediately removed it without any remarks from C; and (d) the Defendant’s demand for the removal of the signboard was unclear at the time the Defendant removed and removed the signboard; and (c) the Defendant arbitrarily removed and damaged C’s signboard, which is one of its competitors, by taking account of the following: (a) it was unclear whether the

It is reasonable to view it.

B. The defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.21 2013고정6377

-의정부지방법원 2013.01.16 2012고정1348

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.15 2015나982

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.05.25 2015고정1257

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.10.26 2016고정489