(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.04.12 2017노539 | 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 2017.04.12 2017노539

특수재물손괴교사등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles 1) 1) A of the fourth floor of the instant building, which Defendant B destroyed according to the direction of Defendant A, is an object owned by the same Defendant that was purchased and installed by Defendant A. As such, the crime of property damage premised on the ownership of another person is not established (this part of the facts charged is that “the aforementioned part of the charges was accompanied by the steel gate hand,” but the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the ground that “the aforementioned facts charged was deemed to have been damaged by displaying the right side part of the bar gate,” even if Defendant B destroyed the part of the edge of inquiry, not the door knife, even if Defendant B destroyed the part of the instant charges, Defendant B did not have to take the key of the elevator for entering the fourth floor of the instant building and instruct Defendant B B to have the door knife the door k hand knife, and then the new hand knife was damaged by the new hand knife, and Defendant B’s hand owned by Defendant B.

Since it was believed that Defendant A had believed to purchase a new loss according to Defendant A’s instructions, the Defendants did not have the intent to damage the property.

2) At the time of the instant crime, Defendant A still had a lien on No. 407 on the fourth floor of the instant building at the time of the instant crime, or ordered Defendant B to enter the said No. 407 without knowing that the said lien has been extinguished. Defendant B had a lien on the said No. 407 at the time of the instant crime.

Since it was believed that the Defendants had no intention to intrude into the structure, there was no intention to do so.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority.

A. at the trial of a public prosecutor, the defendant A.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2013.12.26 2013고정1895

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.10.31 2019고정482

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.10.25 2017고단739

-수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2018노3614

-서울남부지방법원 2019.03.14 2018고단4829