logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노6621
재물손괴등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not assault C et al. by 2 and 3 times as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) As to the damage of property, the paper attached by the Defendant on a grass can be easily removed by water, and the repair cost is not limited, but does not harm the utility of the wall of a building. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as damage.

B) C is a legitimate act as one day within the meaning of this paragraph by putting the Defendant’s wife on the wall and putting it a bath, etc. on the Defendant’s wife.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the argument of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles 1) As to the act of assault, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim C made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below that “the date and time indicated in the facts charged in this case, at a place where the defendant was given a conversation with the defendant, and her hand son son son son son son son son son her hand son her hand son her hand son her hand son her hand son her hand son her hand her, and ② according to the voice file that the victim recorded and submitted the situation at the time of the damage, it can be confirmed that the defendant and the victim her her humd with “h,” and it corresponds to the above statement of the victim. In full view of these circumstances, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the victim

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) As to the allegation that the crime of damage to property does not constitute “damage”, the crime of damage to property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed or the utility thereof is harmed by other means.

arrow