logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.10.16 2013고정751
재물손괴
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 22, 2013, from around 21:14 to 23:10 on the same day, the Defendant had the effect of taking two CCTV sirens installed in the “Ecom Association” deposit room on the first floor of “Ecom Association” located in D, thereby preventing them from being taken as a non-fluent paper.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A report on investigation (CCTV screen);

1. Complaint;

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (amount converted per day: 50,000 won);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1548, Apr. 1, 2007)

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above CCTV does not infringe the utility of the property, such as removal and removal of the screen, and thus does not constitute an element of the crime of causing damage to property, nor constitutes an element of the crime of causing damage to property, and further, it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act in order to prevent the photograph of illegal CCTV installed by the complainant.

2. The crime of destroying or damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when the utility thereof is harmed by any other means. The term "harming the utility of property" refers to making the property in a state where it is virtually impossible to provide it for its original purpose of use due to an appraisal, and it constitutes a case where temporarily converting the property into a state where it cannot play a specific role

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7219, Dec. 22, 2006). According to each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant saw the sirens of CCTV taken by the Defendant as a string.

arrow