(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.15 2017고정213

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.15 2017고정213

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who runs the removal business.

On March 13, 2015, the Defendant damaged another’s property by removing one window on the outer wall without the victim’s permission within five floors of the building D (representative E) between 10:00 - 23:59, and removing another’s property from the outside wall without the victim’s permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. On-site photographs and receipts (the defendant and his defense counsel have a legitimate authority to possess the building as the lessee at the time of the instant case;

The F argues that since the window was removed with the consent of the F, the intention of damage to property cannot be recognized.

However, the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the Defendant: (a) the Defendant was released from the health room upon request of F, which is the creditor of F; (b) the Defendant stated to F that it would inevitably be removed from the outer wall window when moving the health room; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that F was the lessee of the building in this case, and the owner is another person; and (c) the part that F accepted by F in light of the empirical rule is the consent of the Defendant to remove the outer wall window for the removal of the health room; and (d) it is difficult to view that the Defendant was not aware of the intention to permit the removal of the window without restoring it to the original state (the Defendant also did not obtain the consent from F to the police that it does not interfere with the original restoration from the police).

(4) In full view of the fact that the Defendant received a request from the injured party for restoration of the original state, it can be recognized that the Defendant had the intention to damage the property at the time of the instant case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2016고정2827

-서울고등법원 2019.01.10 2018노2498

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.24 2017고합458

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.08.08 2018고정115

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.01.19 2016고단1475