(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.17 2014노2695 | 리걸엔진

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) 인천지방법원 2014.10.17 2014노2695

재물손괴등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not agree with the victim on the issue of delivery of the building and payment of director's expenses, but did not go through legal procedures, and removed the property owned by the victim without permission. Although the above acts of the defendant constitute the crime of intrusion upon residence and damage to property, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was acquitted.

2. Determination:

A. A. A summary of the facts charged 1) On March 6, 2013, at around 12:00, the Defendant: (a) went into the victim’s residence through the back door of the next top store; and (b) on the ground that the victim’s residence D residing in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H and C Ground Building 101 and 102, the Defendant did not demand the above clothing shop costs while selling the above clothing shop; (c) infringed upon the victim’s residence; (d) around 12:00 on March 6, 2013, the Defendant damaged the property and damaged the victim’s house; and (d) on the above clothing store, the victim did not put the above clothing store to lease the above clothing store to another person, the Defendant left out of the clothes shop, west, book, book, chair, 6, clothes display box, 12, clothing display box, 6.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone with respect to the intrusion upon residence was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant went to the victim’s residence; (b) there was no other evidence to acknowledge it; and (c) there was each of the goods indicated in the facts charged within the aforementioned 101 and 102 regarding the damage to property.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has discarded the F or the victim D's ownership without the waiver or consent of the F or the victim D, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and the defendant was acquitted.

C. The lower court duly adopted and investigated the facts acknowledged as one of the lower judgment.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2014.07.18 2013고정4661

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.16 2015고정2361

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2013.04.19 2012전고6

-대전지방법원 2017.12.01 2017고단4224

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2013.12.18 2013고정45