The meaning of damage in the crime of causing property damage

Article 366 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Lee Jong-hoon et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006No747 Decided September 20, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, damage to property constitutes a case where not only a case where an article cannot be used for its original purpose due to a material destruction but also a case where a temporary change of an article cannot play a specific role (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case based on the adopted evidence is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Under the facts duly admitted by the court below, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a self-help act since there is no legal procedure to preserve the defendant's right to exclude possession against the victim or it cannot be viewed as a case where the claim can not be preserved by such method. Further, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules or self-defense to defend the current unfair infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do996 delivered on July 21, 1970).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)