logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.06.12 2014고정289
재물손괴
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 12:50 on August 14, 2013, the Defendant damaged the property of the victim by making 50,000 won per day to five members, such as E, who are living in the adjoining house, and 50,000 won per day to five members of the wall owned by the victim at the site (Ga 2m, height 1m).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Statement of police questioning into E;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of construction specifications, receipt copies, and construction photography statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the fence of this case in this case was accumulated on the defendant's land, and since H, the defendant's trial company,

In other words, evidence of the judgment and the following circumstances recognized as follows: ① the victim and F have consistently stated the fact that the victim accumulated the wall of this case at his own expense, and the objective data are consistent therewith (it cannot be deemed that the above company completed the construction work of the new building owned by the defendant and accumulated at its own expense while exercising the right of retention on the claim for the construction cost, so the wall of this case cannot be deemed to have been accumulated at the defendant's own expense (Evidence 3)); ② The wall of this case was accumulated at the same location as before the wall of this case after the new construction of the defendant, and its location is relatively high compared to the victim's land, so it is possible to confirm it with the land boundary of the defendant and the victim.

arrow