logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.08.18 2014노1344
공용물건손상
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the police officer E’s investigative agency and the prosecutor’s written statement and written estimate at the court of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal, the front front part of the patrol car No. 19 (F; hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) can be sufficiently recognized due to the Defendant’s act stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On November 18, 2013, the Defendant lost a wall before the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-dong Cultural Center, which was located in 710, around November 21, 2013.

112 신고를 하였다가 신고를 받고 출동한 서울 노원 경찰서 C 지구대 소속 경찰 관인 경위 D, E이 구체적인 피해 경위를 묻자 “ 내가 112 신고자인데 경찰관 새끼들은 뭘 그렇게 물어보냐

“Along with the front door of the instant vehicle, the front door of the instant vehicle was even walking so that the repair cost would be 454,153 won.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) although there is a written statement prepared by police officer E as evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court duly admitted and investigated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence; (b) in other words, the vehicle photographs taken by police officers at the time, only remains in the front of the front of the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant did not appear to have taken the front of the police, but did not appear to have taken the front of the police, but was arrested by the police and carried out the lock.

The police officer E, who was called to the site at the time, was arrested by the defendant as the patrol vehicle in the court of the court below.

arrow