(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.04 2019노1137

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.04 2019노1137

재물손괴

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,00,000, respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts leading up to the misunderstanding of facts and legal scenarios (1) are recognized that the Defendants carried out the glass of the office of the head office of the D religious organization (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, at the time, the representative of G (hereinafter “instant Foundation”) who is the owner of the instant building, is not C, but the Defendants entered into the order of J, which is the final decision-making authority for all the matters that occur in D Religious Organizations, thereby damaging another’s property.

Nor can it be deemed that the instant building manager intrudes against the intent of the manager of the instant building. It constitutes each constituent element as above.

However, according to the above circumstances, the Defendants’ act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, since the Defendants’ act was entered in the office of the head of the Gu, in response to the force that opened the office door and occupied the building, and entered the office of the head of the Gu.

(2) The damaged glass price is not 100,000 won.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal at the lower court’s lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and legal scenarios. The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court.

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the defendants, upon the instruction of the court of the court and the defendant's entry into the office of the Sejong District Court. However, the defendants stated that they were instructed by the OJ (the investigation records 2, 48, 16 pages, 16 pages, etc.) and witness P.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2014노3622

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.22 2020노88

-서울동부지방법원 2014.02.05 2013고정2836

-전주지방법원 2018.11.02 2018노631

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.18 2013고정6177