(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노846

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노846

건조물침입등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the conviction of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the conviction of the lower judgment), the victim did not manage the office indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant office”), and is not a legitimate lessee.

Since the defendant entered with the consent of F, a legitimate lessee, there was no intention of intrusion.

In addition, re-propertys No. 11 to 13 are not owned by the victim, and the defendant has not concealed re-propertys No. 14 to 22 each year of crime sight table.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) According to the victim’s statement, E’s statement, etc., the victim, and the victim’s re-property 1 to 10 items per annum of crime sight table is recognized as the victim’s lawsuit, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The Defendant is a lessor who was awarded a successful bid in an auction.

On March 31, 2017, around 18:00, the victim D, a lessee of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102 local floor C, left the office with the main string, middle-string and 11 kinds of golf bonds, into the office by replacing the correction devices of the entrance entrance of the office, and entered the office, and damaged the office string as shown in the list of crimes No. 11 to 22.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence alone, which was presented by the prosecutor, was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s intrusion into the instant office managed by the victimized person, and concealed re-propertys No. 11 through No. 22 of the daily list of crimes owned by the injured person.

f. cannot be seen.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노3701

-대구지방법원 2017.11.24 2017노3284

-서울고등법원 2018.04.19 2017노3307

-부산지방법원 2017.06.29 2015노1314

-제주지방법원 2017.04.20 2017노41