logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2021.01.19 2019고정806
재물손괴
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 25, 2019, at around 19:20, the Defendant confirmed CCTV owned by the victim C District Housing Association, which was installed in the corridor of the office of the victim C District Housing Association located in Seo-gu building 3, Seo-gu, Daegu, Daegu, in a way that he could not use the CCTV for its original purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

2. The legal statement of witness D and E;

3. Some statements made to the defendant in the police interrogation protocol.

4. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

5. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing video recording products CDs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

3. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment.

4. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant did not see CCTV camera, and only see the camera does not constitute a crime of damaging property.

2. First, we examine whether the defendant Kameras was the defendant.

① Examining CCTV images taken by the situation at the time, the Defendant and F go to the Kameras, and the Kameras Kameras turned to the Kameras, which eventually led to the Kameras, one of the Defendant and F, the above Kameras is inevitable; ② E brings to the Kameras at the request of the Defendant; ③ E is not well memory in this Court.

However, in the police, the defendant appeared to have observed the Kameras.

The defendant stated that E, like the defendant, is a person opposite to the executive branch of the partnership, and there is no reason to gather the defendant, and ④ The defendant also stated that he was not guilty of CCTV at the police first, but is not well memoryed later.

In full view of the facts stated, the Defendant stated.

arrow