logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노1439
주거침입등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the statement of the victim of mistake of facts is reliable and consistent with all other circumstances, the court below erred by unfairly rejecting the statement and misunderstanding the fact by accepting only the defendant's assertion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 500,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 2, 2014, around 13:07, the Defendant causing property damage: (a) around February 13, 2014, the Defendant placed the victim’s house located in Seo-gu Seoul apartment 104 dong 402 with the phrase “the victim’s crogate” on the apartment door in the apartment door; (b) destroyed the victim’s 2 head of Seo-gu, which is the victim’s own 70,000 won of the erode and damaged the erode by breaking up the erode of the two market prices of the head of Seo-gu, which are owned by the victim; and (c) damaged the repair cost of the erode by walking the ero

B) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) during the above time of assault, kneeing the victim’s left side knee, knee knee kne, knee kne, and assaulted the victim; (c) the lower court determined as follows: (a) the witness D showed an attitude of exaggerationing the damage rather than objectively stating the situation at the court of the lower court; (b) the Defendant did not make an objective inquiry; and (c) the Defendant argued that the Defendant was at the right side of the copy outside of the right side at the time of the instant case, walking with the object as stated in this part of the facts charged; and (d) the Defendant could not inspect with D. In so doing, the part of the written confirmation submitted by the counsel is consistent with the Defendant’s argument; (d) the witness E’s statement at the time of the instant case is consistent with this; and (e) the Defendant’s statement at the time of the instant case’s appearance and shape, etc., that it is difficult to see this part of the Defendant’s statement and this charge.

arrow