logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.09.22 2017고정311
재물손괴등
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant who damaged property is entitled to complete payment of KRW 7,00,000,000, collected at the victim D (58 tax) office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 202 above the second floor on July 5, 2016.

Although the victim did not have due to the difficulty of the victim, one computer monitor equivalent to 150,000 won on the books of the office was placed on the customer's market price, which is 150,000 won, and damaged the above computer monitor and the consignee of the office.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, expressed to the victim D (58 taxes) a large voice that “I will die and die,” on the grounds as set forth in paragraph 1, the Defendant laid down a shoulder glass (30cm in length, 40~50cm in length and length) on the back side of the obligor’s back wall, carried the obligor’s breath and flad the obligor.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. The accusation (including damaged photographs) (including the defendant and his defense counsel) denies all the facts charged by asserting that the monitor was not faced with the defendant's arms during the process of gathering a computer monitor, and that the plaintiff did not collect a shoulder glass or spabnize the victim's spath, but the defendant and his defense counsel did not contain a computer monitor. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, there are parts that are not somewhat inconsistent with the testimony of D and E, so criminal facts are all acknowledged (the testimony of D and E is somewhat inconsistent).

Even if such circumstance alone makes a different determination, the above argument cannot be accepted) applying the law.

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

arrow