(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.14 2017고정544

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) 광주지방법원 2017.09.14 2017고정544

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the manager of the Dong-gu Seouldong-gu Seoul lending.

On February 12, 2017, from around 18:30 on the same day to around 23:50 on the same day, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that the victim D (26 years) parked the EM5 car owned by him, thereby damaging approximately KRW 3.20,00 of repair cost, and the main c.20,000 on the road at the entrance of the above C, thereby damaging the EM5 car. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was shaking the main c., but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was shaking the main c.e., the main c., the damage of the damaged vehicle. In light of the damage part of the damaged vehicle, the Defendant caused the damage of the instant vehicle only by the c.m., inasmuch as the c., the c. was s.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the facts charged are recognized only as scambling over the scamblings as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of D or F;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. The CD;

1. A investigation report (related to submission of a written estimate for maintenance);

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the investigation report (the initial site chief and the nearby search and investigation) (the defendant set up a bridge to the driver of the victimized vehicle who illegally parked in the meaning of warning, but did not cause damage as in the instant case.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s act was destroyed by the Defendant’s act, and the intent of the damage is sufficiently recognized, in light of the Defendant’s series of acts, including: (a) the Defendant was forced to inspect the inter-victim of the damaged vehicle; and (b) the Defendant’s inspection was conducted on the basis that the damaged vehicle was parked in a place other than the parking zone.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제366조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016가합508343

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2020.04.20 2019고정345

-부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2017고단2446

-대구지방법원 2020.07.23 2020고정712

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.25 2019노830