logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.05.09 2014고정506
재물손괴
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant, at around 18:52 on November 25, 2013, "14:09, which is the time of the crime stated in the indictment, seems to have been erroneous for the said time when the instant vehicle was towed.

Although the defendant's vehicle was towed at the storage facility of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Songpa-dong 770-1, the above blocking machine was damaged to cover approximately KRW 480,000 by driving the defendant's vehicle B, which was towed in the above towing room, and driving the vehicle B and pushed it down.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. A criminal investigation report (related to the part damaged by a circuit) and a video confirmation report;

1. In light of the above evidence, the defendant can be found to have recovered his vehicle from the towing station by operating the vehicle as a space between the shuttlers where the vehicle cannot pass without following due process, unless the vehicle in which parking was towed to the dispatched vehicle storage, as in Pyeongtaek, without undergoing due process, even though the vehicle was towed to the dispatched vehicle storage. Thus, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intentional intention to inflict property damage at the time of the instant case.).

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that in that the defendant collected his/her vehicle by means of unilaterally destroying the blocking device without following due process, he/she is dissatisfied with the towing of his/her vehicle, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good, and the defendant appears to be a crime of violence.

arrow