logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.08.20 2014고정537
재물손괴
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 11, 2014, the Defendant destroyed the “F Hospital E” parking lot, which was located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, by means of removing the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000,000, market value of the banner 2 banner relating to the “Irreg church,” which the victim G was attached on both sides of his Hwp and the spon board.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Photographs of damaged articles;

1. Matters to be submitted in a written estimate for an investigation report and receipts;

1. Application of investigation reports (CCTV verification investigation) and CCTV photographs-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Detention in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act of KRW 100,000 per day;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the banner removed by the defendant is merely a tool used in the criminal act and cannot be deemed to have a unique property nature by itself, even though it is recognized as a family property nature, since it has already been damaged and has already lost property nature, the removal of the right banner does not constitute a crime of causing property damage, and ② the defendant's act has damaged the reputation of the above church as a "one Nar church," and removed a banner that does not meet the installation installation requirements under the Outdoor Advertisement Control Act, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes a self-defense or a legitimate act.

First, as to whether the banner of this case constitutes "relic" which is the object of the crime of causing property damage, the property, which is the object of the crime of causing property damage, does not necessarily need to have objective monetary exchange values, and the owner has subjective values, and even if so, it is sufficient to satisfy the purpose of being provided for the crime.

arrow