(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.01 2018고정603

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) 인천지방법원 2018.06.01 2018고정603

재물손괴

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 19, 2017, around 12:27, the Defendant destroyed “the warning note of lien” owned by the victim D, which is attached to the door of a household in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 311, 601, 912, 117, 1313, 1319, 1408, and 1413, by removing “the warning note of lien” without the victim’s permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written complaint, documents submitted by the complainant (subcontracts, civil documents, etc.), and warning of the right of retention;

1. On-site CCTV data [the defendant and his/her defense counsel had been aware that the defendant had already been aware that the ownership dispute had already been settled and that he/she had no intention to remove "the warning of a lien" and damage another person's property.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, the Defendant removed “the warning of lien” as stated in the judgment in the investigative agency while cleaning the instant officetel 1405 at the time to sell it.

In light of the fact that the removal of “the warning letter of lien” was not related to the original Defendant’s work, and that the Defendant was aware that the civil lawsuit against some of the households was in a state that it is impossible to dispose of it in E Co., Ltd., in which the Defendant was working, the Defendant could have easily known that the entire instant officetel building dispute was not closed.

Moreover, the Defendant continued to work in the real estate industry, and even though he had knowledge or experience in the right of retention disputes over new buildings, he removed “the warning of the right of retention” without any confirmation from the company side, and the “the warning of the right of retention” removed by the Defendant stated the name and contact information of the person who posted the warning.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the Defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.04.12 2018고단575

-부산지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노4533

-수원지방법원 2014.11.07 2014노4460

-서울남부지방법원 2013.02.20 2012고단4073 (1)

-서울남부지방법원 2013.01.16 2012고단4073