beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only the intention to obtain the defective parts from the beginning, and there was no intention to obtain the repair cost from the damaged person.
However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that there was no speech that the Defendant would allow the repair without compensation at the time of leaving the repair, refusing the payment of the repair cost on the ground of free repair after completing the repair, and the Defendant did not have any grounds to demand the victim to repair without compensation.
However, according to the records, at around February 201, 201, the Defendant had been repairing parts of the Defendant’s cargo vehicles, such as gas diskettes (referring to the pipe emitting exhausters from engine engine) with non-net goods (hereinafter “original repair”). In other words, due to the occurrence of a problem in the above parts, the Defendant visited the maintenance center for the operation of the victim on July 19, 201 and again charged the repair of the said parts. After the completion of the repair of the instant case, the Defendant was punished for a conflict between the victim and the repair cost, and the Defendant did not pay the repair cost, but could know the fact that the Defendant was driving of the freight without paying the repair cost for the repair cost to the extent that the repair cost did not reach an agreement on the amount of the repair cost. The Defendant was found to have been erroneous.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant does not have the ability to pay the repair cost at the time, it is separate to hold the Defendant liable for nonperformance of civil liability, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient.