beta
Text
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of assaulting the instant facts charged is acquitted.
Reasons
The acquittal portion
1. At around 17:00 on December 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the said car, which is the property owned by the victim, by impairing its utility by walking the door even in the driver’s seat of the E-car owned by the victim, due to the victim D’s parking on the front side of “C” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu; (b) on the ground that the victim D was parked, and (c) caused the defect in the driver’s seat of the E-car.
2. Determination
(a) The crime of destroying or damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act shall come into existence where the property of another person is destroyed or concealed, or is prejudicial to its usefulness by other means
Here, the term "provoking the utility of property" means de facto or emotionally converting the property into a state in which it can not be provided for its original purpose of use, and includes temporary converting the property into a state in which it can not be used.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3369, Aug. 30, 2016). (B)
According to the records of this case, the defendant can be recognized as the defendant's motion to walk even the driver's seat of the car owned by the victim.
However, in light of whether the victim's vehicle was damaged due to the above act of the defendant, the victim stated in this court that "the vehicle is not a string, but a string, but a string, the present defect is not visible," and the investigative agency also stated that "the repair cost is not likely to obstruct the string and operation of the string. There is no string." The defendant did not submit a written estimate, and it is difficult to confirm the form or degree of the accurate defect, etc. of the string from the photograph photographing the string of the string at the time, and the defendant's consent to walk the string of the driver's seat was only once. In light of the above, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient for the victim's vehicle to be used for its original purpose.
The state in which it can not be used at any time.