(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.13 2015노1937 | 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) 수원지방법원 2015.10.13 2015노1937

재물손괴

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. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defense counsel;

A. The victim E-owned shot tree (hereinafter “instant tree”) which was seriously affected on the D ground at the time of mistake of facts in Gwangju, is located on the ground that the Defendant cultivated and on the boundary of the land owned by the victim, and is located on the victim’s house fence.

Therefore, the defendant did not think that the tree of this case is owned by the victim and injected the pesticide into the above tree without the consent of the victim, so there was no intention to infringe all or part of the utility of others' property.

In addition, the tree of this case is still living without death and has restored the state of worship.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged with the destruction of property of this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the instant trees currently live and the victim appears to have desired to kill the instant trees, etc., the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 3,000,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The prosecutor filed a motion to amend the indictment of this case with the following facts: “The defendant filed a motion to amend the indictment of this case with the following facts: “The defendant shall not be deemed to have damaged it by inserting the above shot tree per minute and inserting agrochemicals for a considerable period of time on the ground that the defendant does not have the sunlight in the crops cultivated in F due to the shot tree owned by the victim E which is planted on the D-based in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, on March 2014.” The defendant filed a motion to amend the indictment of this case to the effect that “The defendant damaged it by inserting the above shot tree and inserting agrochemicals for a considerable period of time,” and

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

(b).

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.03.24 2014고정1774

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2016.02.02 2015고단1177

-대전지방법원 2018.08.16 2017노3864

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.03.20 2013고정794

-대전지방법원 2005. 7. 21. 선고 2005노140 판결