logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.07.06 2016고정1446
재물손괴
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the locks installed by the injured party D, Inc., Ltd., Inc., Ltd. in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, by cutting the locks installed by the injured party to prevent theft of mining equipment, etc.; and (b) destroyed the market price locked, which is the victim’s ownership, by the aforementioned method five times, as indicated in the attached crime sight table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the witness F in the third public trial records;

1. Statement protocol with respect to G (two times);

1. Report on investigation (Attachment to a detailed statement of processing reports 112), and details of processing of reported cases;

1. A certified copy of each land registry, and mining extraction register;

1. Each photograph, closure photograph (the defendant and his defense counsel had the right to access the instant flusium mining facilities, and at the time the access was controlled.

The E asserts to the effect that it constitutes a justifiable act as it damages locks with permission of the E.

According to each of the above evidence, the victim company acquired the ownership of the instant land on April 11, 2014 and engaged in the mining of coal as the Defendant and the same business with the mining right holder at the time. However, on July 21, 2015, the Defendant’s mining right was transferred to H by auction on July 21, 2015; thereafter, the victim company installed locks within the instant facilities in order to prevent the victim company from taking away smoke, etc.

The fact that E had a key to the fixed door, and the Defendant demanded E to open a door on September 6, 2015, but before E opens the door, destroyed the locks installed by the victim company four times, and otherwise, the Defendant destroyed the locks with the permission of E.

there is no evidence to consider.

Even if the defendant had the right to enter the facility of this case, the defendant will pay the work price to E on behalf of the victim company.

arrow