(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.08.22 2012노5052 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2013.08.22 2012노5052

폭행등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal portion) E’s written statement to the court below and the investigation agency, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant led to the defendant to leave the KGggggggggggggn which was definitely owned by J (hereinafter “the vehicle of this case”). Even if the defendant tried to assault E and avoided by E, thereby causing damage to the vehicle of this case, even if the defendant would have damaged the vehicle of this case, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant would have an incomplete intention to cause damage to property, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the damage of property among the facts charged of this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles or

2. On January 26, 2012, around 02:05, the Defendant: (a) damaged the part of the instant vehicle, which was owned by the victim J, by walking the left door of the instant vehicle owned by the victim J, in front of the D cafeteria located in Ansan-si, so that the amount equivalent to KRW 49,180,00, such as the repair cost, such as the fee for a set-off of fluor, can be seen as 49,180.

3. The lower court determined that, in the court of the lower court’s determination, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant intentionally damaged the instant car, as it is difficult to view that the Defendant intentionally damaged the instant car in light of the degree and location of the damaged vehicle’s photograph, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

4. The defendant's written statement at the court of the original instance of E and the police's written statement to E are admissible as evidence that the defendant intentionally damaged the car of this case, but the statement at the court of the original instance of E and the police's written statement to E are written, "the contents of the statement" are behind the defendant, and the vehicle of this case is reported and the driver's seat is placed.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.09.19 2014노936

-대구지방법원 2014.10.30 2014노312

-대전지방법원 2019.07.25 2019노800

-창원지방법원 2019.11.01 2019노1694

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노997