logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.11 2019노1454
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant in mistake of facts finds the hacker column in which the signboards used as the "D" are affixed is recognized.

However, the 쇠 column is an illegal building, not a victim, but a non-owned object.

In the case of a signboard, the function of the signboard cannot be deemed to have been impaired because it was not physically damaged, and the utility such as the function as an advertising sign was practically or partly infringed on by the defendant's act of domestic affairs.

Even if there are no requests such as the removal of several times on the part of the victim, the defendant's act of having the hacker column inevitably does not violate the social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same purport, and the lower court determined that the aforementioned assertion was made in detail in the context of the application of statutes among the judgment, and rejected such assertion, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Examining the above judgment of the lower court closely and closely compared with the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justified. 2) In addition, for a justifiable act to be recognized, the requirements such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the benefits of protection and infringement, and the balance of the benefits of infringement, as well as the supplementary nature that there is no means or method other than the act, which is recognized by the above evidence. In other words, the Defendant is actually able to take necessary measures if the hacks are illegal buildings.

arrow