2015fixed322 Property damage and damage

A

Isopias (prosecutions) and Isopias (Public Trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

March 26, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

On August 20, 2014, the Defendant discovered that the victim E parked a F-car in the “D” parking lot located in Macheon-si, Macheon-si on August 20, 2014, and provided that the victim does not pay rent, etc., the Defendant would not allow the victim to drive a vehicle for about one hour and 30 minutes in front and rear the said vehicle, thereby ensuring the utility of the said vehicle owned by the victim.

2. Determination

According to the statement and the evidence submitted by the defendant in this court, the defendant's statement and the prosecutor are found to have failed to operate the above vehicle for about one hour and 30 minutes in front and rear the vehicle owned by the victim in order to prevent the movement of the victim. However, the above recognition alone cannot be deemed to have impaired the utility of the vehicle owned by the victim by other means and there is no other evidence to recognize it otherwise. In other words, the term "use infringement by other means" under Article 366 of the Criminal Act means the situation in which the goods can not be used in fact or appraisal by other means than the concealment of the damage, and it also includes that the goods cannot be used temporarily in accordance with the original usage of the vehicle. It also includes that the relation between the damage and concealment, which is a type of the crime of property damage, and the protected legal interest in the crime of property damage is the ownership, at least the function or utility of the "goods itself" should be damaged or reduced. However, the fact that the defendant's temporary use of the vehicle can not be seen as being infringed by the front and rear operation of the vehicle.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be pronounced, but since the defendant's consent to the public notice of acquittal cannot be obtained,

Judges Kim Jin-hee