logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.01.25 2018고단1474
재물손괴등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant B, it shall be for 2 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. Around September 8, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victims by attaching the F Building G heading lock locking device of a sum of KRW 300,000 of the market price owned by the victim D and E in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

B. On September 2017, the Defendant: (a) called “B” who was located in the Seocho-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu); (b) had B enter the said F building G, the victim E house, and had B interfered with the victims’ residence.

Therefore, around September 8, 2017, B entered the above F building G, thereby infringing upon the victims' residence.

Accordingly, the defendant instigated the above victims to intrude into the victims' residence.

2. Around September 8, 2017, Defendant B entered the victim D and the said F building G, a house of the victim E, and invaded upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A certificate;

1. A service contract for business;

1. Application of a copy of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provision applicable to the crime: Articles 319(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 319(1) (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of suspended execution: Judgment on Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. As to Defendant A’s assertion

A. Defendant A, while occupying the instant building H as the exercise of the right of retention, was accused of having violated the structure, etc., but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that it constitutes “the exercise of the right of retention” by a prosecutor.

Accordingly, the Defendant considers that the act recorded in the facts charged is legally permissible, and described in the facts charged to exercise the right of retention.

arrow