logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.05.19 2015노1429
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In order to prevent the passage of others in the vicinity of the access road in substantial Gu/Si/Gu of the Cheongju to the road, the person who suffered damage from the gist of the grounds for appeal installed a steel-frame entrance and connected both sides of the entrance door to the steel-frame fence.

Therefore, since the above steel fence was owned by the defendant, the defendant separated the steel fence from the steel fence and the steel fence, the defendant left the steel fence with only the steel fence as a track, and there was no damage to the steel fence and the tank tree tree seedling as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant can be found to have damaged iron entrances and tank tree seedlings owned by the victim as stated in the instant facts charged. Thus, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged (the lower court, however, found the market price of steel entrance doors and tank tree seedlings differently from the facts charged, as otherwise stated in the facts charged), is just and acceptable, and there was an error of misconception of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

A. On August 2014, 2014, the day before the instant crime was committed, the Defendant recognized the fact that he had a fence installed by the victim as a Trackter, while the instant crime was denied. However, it is clear that the victim’s steel-resistant entrance door and tank tree nursery were damaged as stated in the instant charges around October 2014. As such, in the instant case, it is questionable whether the Defendant damaged the re-refrat door door and tank tree nursery even around October 2014, as indicated in the instant charges.

In this regard, ① On the day of committing a crime as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, 2014.

arrow