(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018노2293

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018노2293

퇴거불응등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Property damage among the facts charged in the instant case.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant asserted that he did not comply with the withdrawal order, and the Defendant entered the victim's shop as he did not pay the victim's monthly rent and did not pay the victim's monthly rent, and there was only a fact that he did not withdraw about one minute.

Since such act does not reach the degree of undermining the peace of residence, the crime of non-compliance with eviction is not established.

B) In order to receive monthly rent from the victim, the Defendant inevitably failed to comply with the request for eviction, and there was a risk of being unable to receive a claim if the victim was a director or a director. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a self-help act or a justifiable act. 2) The victim alleged the damage of property falls under the act of aiding and abetting the Defendant, leaving the Defendant in the door, and installed a correction device at the bottom of the entrance, with concerns over the theft of the victim’s animals.

Before the Defendant installed such corrective devices, there was no corrective device at the bottom of the entrance.

Therefore, there is no fact that the defendant damaged the victim's property.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 400,000) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below 1 on the issue of non-compliance with the withdrawal, i.e., (i) the victim testified at the court of the court of the court below that “Around May 30, 2017, when preparing directors at around 10:30, the victim would not be a director until the defendant reaches the close monthly rent, and that the victim would return the article again to the court of the court of the court below. The defendant demanded that the defendant would return money, and that the defendant would return the article for more than one hour, and eventually the defendant would not refuse to comply with the order.” (ii)

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018노2293

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.23 2017고정1944

-인천지방법원 2015.12.04 2015고정2100

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.02.13 2014고정315

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.04.27 2015고정1787