(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.11.17 2020고정289

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) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.11.17 2020고정289

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)

Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A With her husband D, it is not good to make an appraisal, such as filing a complaint several times with victim F, due to the nearby passage of Mana-gun E, and Defendant B and Defendant C are bound to look for skills in G operated jointly by Defendant A and the above husband D.

On April 20, 2020, at around 18:10, the Defendants reported the steel preparations and guide fences equivalent to 9,000 won in the market value owned by the victims, and Defendant A her scameded it, and Defendant B her scamed off with a stone stone stone with a 2-3 string of the steel pole, and damaged the steel pole and guide fences with a string of 2-3 string of the steel pole, and Defendant C also destroyed it by breaking the steel pole and guide fences.

Accordingly, the defendants jointly damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant C

1. Statement made by the police of the F;

1. The Defendants asserted that the victim’s act of interfering with the traffic first is lawful.

However, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by evidence, i.e., the circumstance that the defendant A and the victim had already made an appraisal as a matter of passage, and the dispute was ongoing, the victim obstructed the passage of the vehicle by the steel pole and the guide fence, and the passage through which the victim could enter was not obstructed by leaving the vehicle, and the defendants left the pool and damaged the above goods, even if the victim interfered with traffic, it is clear that the defendants' act constitutes property damage due to unlawful behavior that cannot be deemed as an act of self-help or self-help permitted by the law, even if it is unlawful for the victim to interfere with traffic.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

In addition, Defendant B argues that it was established on the side of A who is not the victim.

However, evidence.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.02.05 2020고정347

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2020.04.07 2020고정40

-대구지방법원 2019.07.16 2019고정171

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.10.20 2020고정287

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정1395