beta
Text
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
around 01:00 on June 21, 2019, the Defendant: (a) placed in the front parking lot B B in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Seoul-si; (b) placed a 2-site 14, where the victim C parked in a parking zone designated by the Defendant on the ground that the victim C parked in the Defendant’s designated parking zone; (c) placed a frame for landing at the front of the driver’s seat of the Doz’s car, which is the victim’s ownership, on the ground that the victim C parked,
As a result, the Defendant stated in the indictment that the said car can not be used temporarily as a repair cost of approximately KRW 2,050,000 in the indictment. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said repair cost is the repair cost incurred by the Defendant’s landing frame used by the Defendant, which is corrected as stated in the facts of the crime.
Summary of Evidence
The summary of the Defendant’s assertion of determination as to the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion of on-site photographs of the written statement C of the Defendant’s partial statement at the court, the attachment of a warning to the Defendant, and his defense counsel, did not impair the utility of the vehicle, and there was no intention to damage property. The Defendant’s act
Judgment
A. 1) In the crime of destroying property and intentional act, the term "balone" in the crime of destroying property constitutes not only a case where the property cannot be used for its original purpose, but also a case where the property cannot be used for its specific purpose temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982, etc.). In addition, in recognizing the criminal intent of destroying property, it does not necessarily have to have a planned intention of damage or actively wish to damage the property, but it is sufficient to have the awareness that the property would lose its utility against its owner's will (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant is used for the front part of the driver's seat in front of the victim's vehicle.