logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.22 2013노3842
재물손괴등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On May 16, 2013, at around 16:00, the Defendant: (a) sought to receive the first floor service of D stores in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul; and (b) demanded a responsible person due to the occurrence of the E vehicle defect; (c) destroyed the victim H representative I’s market price in the office that was kept in the office for the reason that he did not promptly wait for the responsible person; and (d) destroyed it by having the victim H representative I’s market price in excess of KRW 150,000,000 on the floor; and

B. The Defendant above A.

In order to show the truth continuously at the time and place stated in the port, and to have two vehicles of other customers kept in the office, the victim F(36 years of age) who refrains from doing so was assaulting the victim F(36 years of age) by drinking once.

2. The court below found the defendant guilty of the part of the charge of this case's assaulting the victim F's arm's length among the charges of this case's assaulting the part of the charge of this case's assaulting the victim F, and the part of the charge of this case's destruction is proved as evidence consistent with this part of the charge of this case's charge that F did not witness the scene of destruction, but F did not appear to have any reaction such as generally anticipated play when the defendant damaged by negligence after damage. G stated that the defendant stated that "G weather is desired to move" after he stated that "G weather is difficult," while considering the size, shape, etc. of the flower and leaf from the above photographing the above photograph, it is difficult to find that the defendant intentionally destroyed the above part of the charge of this case's crime because it was hard to conclude that there was no other evidence to support that the defendant's defense was damaged at the time of the above crime.

arrow