(영문) 전주지방법원 남원지원 2020.06.23 2020고정4

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 남원지원 2020.06.23 2020고정4

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 24, 2019, from around 17:00 to 23:00, the Defendant damaged the said vehicle, which was owned by the victim, by using the victim D’s spare in the spons of the Esp motor vehicle set up on the front of the building owned by the Defendant in the front of the building of the Guwon, which is the Defendant in the Jeon Changwon-gun, in a manner that the said vehicle was “prohibited from parking” with the spick pent.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. Written estimate;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel in six copies of vehicle photographs and photographs of damaged vehicles

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant, as well as the Defendant’s act, has written letters on the fronts of the victim’s vehicle using the Borda pent, which is easily crossed off with the victim’s warning as to unauthorized parking. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act has impaired the utility of the victim’s vehicle, and it is not recognized

2. Determination

A. In recognition of the criminal intent of destroying and damaging property legal principles, it does not necessarily have to have a planned intent of damage or actively wish to damage an article, but it becomes a perception for losing the utility of an article against the owner’s will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). Here, the term “harming the utility of an article” means, in fact or in appraisal, converting the property into a state in which it cannot be provided for its original purpose of use, and includes temporarily converting the property into a state in which it cannot be used.

In particular, whether an act of investment in a vehicle or an act of falling on a studs, etc. outside the vehicle constitutes an act of harming the utility of the vehicle or not, the purpose and function of the vehicle, the impact of the act on the operation of the vehicle and the degree of harm to the aesthetic view, the unobsing or resistance of the vehicle owner, and the difficulty and difficulty of restoration to its original state, as well as the cost required

참조판례

-대법원 1993. 12. 7. 선고 93도2701 판결

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.12.18 2020노149

-대전지방법원 2015.02.13 2014고단2401

-대법원 2014.09.04 2014도2568

-창원지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노2503

-제주지방법원 2020.10.15 2020고정164