(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.11.29 2019노516 | 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) 청주지방법원 2019.11.29 2019노516

재물손괴

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely supporting the victim's present door, and there is no fact that the defendant damaged the wall next to the front door due to the loss.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is obviously unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court based on the results of the first instance court and the results of additional evidence examination by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2013Do5029, Sept. 12, 2013).

A concrete judgment of the court below also argued as the grounds for appeal, and the court below stated that "the following circumstances, which can be known by each evidence at the time of printing, that is, the defendant has committed an act to incidental goods by putting him/her at his/her own house before getting his/her house up with the victim's house, and the victim made a statement that he/she saw him/herself to go up with his/her will from this investigation agency to this court, and there is a trace that the defendant seems to have been damaged by the victim's house wall surface, and that there is no fact that the defendant gave him/her the victim's house in the investigation agency.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2008도7917 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.10.02 2019노894

-전주지방법원 2020.01.08 2019노1427

-광주지방법원 2019.10.31 2019노752

-전주지방법원 2019.10.23 2019노1144

-수원지방법원 2019.09.23 2018노7327