logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.09.24 2019노4352
재물손괴
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of all the evidence, including CCTV images, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant recognized the fact that the damaged vehicle was destroyed by destroying the damaged vehicle by destroying the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant case, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined: (a) the victim left the instant vehicle at the investigative agency on November 28, 2018 at around 20:29, and stated that it was not confirmed at the time the vehicle was lowered; (b) the Defendant’s wife and children first returned home after having arrived at the underground parking lot on November 28, 2018; and (c) the Defendant 22:37, after having her first returned home from the CCTV images at around 22:34, the Defendant 1 minute 22:37, followed by carrying any object and returned home to the underground parking lot; and (d) if the Defendant was on board the elevator and returned to the underground parking lot at around 22:43, when he was on board the elevator and returned to the underground parking lot.

22:46 Around 22:46, the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s behavior, such as: (a) the Defendant entered as an opposite part of the victim’s vehicle, and then confirmed the scene of entering one’s own Dong line through the outer side of the apartment house; (b) but (c) the victim was aware of the damage of this case at around 11:00 on November 29, 2019. The underground parking lot of the apartment in this case was a place through which many residents, including the Defendant, went along for about 15 hours from the time the victim went to the time the fact of the damage was discovered; (d) even if there are circumstances that the Defendant was a somewhat doubtful act on the side of the victim’s vehicle, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant committed the damage of this case; and (e) the Defendant was a victim’s front window after the movement of the vehicle submitted by the victim.

arrow