logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노1809
재물손괴
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) was that the defendant dismantled or removed the instant incineration, but the victim understood or consented to dispose of the instant incineration by the defendant, and did not withdraw his intention.

In addition, the defendant's act is to escape from the infringement of ownership due to delay in restoration of the victim's duty, and it is a legitimate defense or self-help to preserve the victim's right to claim restitution.

However, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s crime of damage to property, and thus, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On April 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) voluntarily dismantled and removed the market price in the victim’s possession by requesting the victim D to “E” at a factory leased and used by the victim D in Sejong-si on April 2, 2015; and (b) arbitrarily dismantled and removed the market price of the victim’s ownership without the consent of the victim.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant consented to the disposal of the instant incineration, stating to the effect that “The victim was aware of and treated the instant incineration and claimed for waste disposal costs to himself/herself,” according to the facts acknowledged as indicated in its reasoning, even if the Defendant asserted.

Even if the defendant's dissolution and removal prior to the defendant's incineration of this case, the victim and the defendant's side are not able to pay money in relation to the above disposal costs.

The victim, who stated to the effect that “I, regardless of the law, I have withdrawn the consent to the dissolution and removal of the instant incineration made on the part of the Defendant.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the victim's explicit or implied consent was given to the defendant's act of damaging the defendant's act of incineration of this case.

The court determined that it could not be seen.

(c)

The records of the judgment of this Court.

arrow