2015No985 Property damage and damage

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Prosecutor

E.I.D. (Lawsuits) and L.I.D. (Trial)

Attorney Park Do-young

Suwon District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 322 Decided March 26, 2015

August 28, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

Since the original usage of a vehicle is "operation", the defendant's act of making it impossible for the victim to drive the vehicle for about one hour and thirty minutes as stated in the facts charged so that it could not be used in the "operation" as it would impair the utility of the vehicle by any other means, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts of the public action in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

On August 20, 2014: around 00, the Defendant discovered that the victim B was parked in the parking lot ○○○-ro, ○○○, ○○-si, and caused the victim not to pay rent, etc. to the Tracter and one ton of cargo vehicles, thereby allowing the victim to drive the vehicle for about one hour and 30 minutes on the ground that the victim did not pay rent, etc., thereby impairing the utility of the said vehicle owned by the victim.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that: (a) the relationship between damage and concealment, which is a type of other acts of causing damage to property, and the protection of the crime of causing damage to property, are ownership; and (b) the function or utility of the “water itself” should be reduced so as to fall under the infringement of utility by other means; (c) the Defendant’s failure to temporarily block the victim’s passenger vehicle before and after his passenger vehicle cannot be deemed to have infringed on the utility of the vehicle solely on the ground that the use of the vehicle cannot be said to have been infringed.

C. Judgment of the court below

The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Code is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "procing the utility of the property" means that the property is, in fact or by appraisal, needed only when it is impossible to be used for its original purpose of use, and temporarily converting the property into a state in which it cannot be used.

However, whether an act of writing on the wall of a structure or an act of throwing away garbage, etc. constitutes an act of damaging the utility of the structure shall be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of the use and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, view, etc. of the structure, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, the displeasure or resistance that the users of the structure feel, the degree of harm to the view of the structure, the difficulty and difficulty of restoration to the original state, the expenses to be incurred, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, whether the act as stated in the facts charged by the defendant constitutes a case of infringing the utility of a passenger car shall be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose and function of the passenger car, difficulty of restoring the vehicle to its original state, expenses to be incurred, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time of the act. Thus, the court below's "other methods" under the principle of clarity of the principle of no punishment without the law is interpreted to mean all methods other than damage and concealment, but it does not mean a method of infringing the utility of the goods. ② After the judgment of the court below became final, it is difficult for the defendant to view the victim's vehicle as a way of infringing the utility of the goods, and ② after the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to see the victim's vehicle as a victim's road or a passenger vehicle's vehicle, ③ it was hard to see the victim's vehicle's own effort to prevent the victim's vehicle from being damaged by the victim's vehicle or other vehicle.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, so the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of each court pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges shall be selected from the presiding judge -

Judges Kim Byung-ju

Judge Lee Young-young