(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노3819 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노3819

재물손괴

Text

The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant is acquitted.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted each of the Defendants on the charge of destroying property and obstructing the infringement of structures and business.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Prosecutor appealed against the convicted portion on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The appellate court prior to remand dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

After that, the Supreme Court appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance before only the defendant was remanded. The Supreme Court accepted the defendant's appeal and reversed the conviction portion in the judgment of the court of first instance before the remand and remanded to this court.

(c)

According to the above litigation process, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is divided and confirmed as the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the court prior to the remand, and the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine) 1 was found to have been removed from the elevator wall from the “written reply in response to a claim (hereinafter “the reply document in this case”) against the ASEAN Corporation, a new city, Asan-si D, Asan-si, and did not destroy the instant reply document, and did not conceal the document to the joint receiver of the instant reply document.

2) Joint receivers did not want to disclose the instant reply document to others without their consent, and the Defendant merely committed an act corresponding to the act of preserving the jointly-owned property, which is not contrary to the presumption of occupants’ consent or social rules, and thus, illegality is dismissed.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (an amount of KRW 300,000) sentenced by the lower court is too uneased and unfair.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant of this part of the facts charged is the instant case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노4214

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노1395

-대전지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노214

-대전지방법원 2017.09.13 2017노66

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.19 2017노1130