logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.28 2018고정702
재물손괴
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, the representative of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, 509 apartment units, and around March 19, 2018, around 13:06, the victim D, the representative of the C apartment remodeling housing association, arbitrarily removed a notice posted under the title “the result of the draft of the remodeling resolution for approval of the project plan” from the elevator surface of the above C apartment unit 509 unit.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant destroyed or damaged a notice or had the intention to destroy the notice.

It cannot be determined otherwise, and there is no evidence to recognize it.

(1) The Defendant did not make it difficult for the occupants to view the notice, but set again at the bottom of the opposite part. In light of the fact that the location where the notice was placed was a location where other notices were posted by a remodeling cooperative and its opposing members (a witness E’s statement) and the location where the notice was posted, the Defendant’s use of the notice could not be seen.

It shall not be readily concluded.

② Although the degree of toxicity may be reduced due to the difference between the first attached location and the attachment location, in light of the fact that the instant notice was still posted on the elevator and its intent was delivered after the second attachment, the mere reason why the notice was somewhat inconvenient was created in a situation where the meaning of the expression of intent to deliver the notice was partially lost or it was temporarily unusable.

It shall not be readily concluded.

③ The Defendant consistently stated that, from the police to the court, the Defendant “to cause inconvenience to the occupants who want to use a sign affixed to the sign and to address the sign, and did not intend to destroy the sign.”

(4) The kinds of notices actually attached to the elevator 509 type in the instant case.

arrow