(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.14 2016고정1221

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) 대구지방법원 2016.10.14 2016고정1221

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and the defendant B shall be punished by a fine of seven hundred thousand won.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A, on February 29, 2016, the victim E, who is the chairperson of the Committee for the Promotion of D Redevelopment Improvement, dismissed the victim and was appointed as the chairperson acting for the resolution of the Committee, and the defendant B is the member of the Committee for the Promotion of D Redevelopment Improvement. The defendants requested the victim to hand over all the documents related to the duties of the Committee to the victim on the ground of the resolution of the Committee for Promotion, but the victim failed to claim and comply with the dismissal of the chairperson by the resolution of the Committee for Promotion.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly with F, at around 10:50 on March 19, 2016 to around 11:10, at the office of the D&C Promotion Committee for D&C located in Daegu-gu G, the Defendants failed to repair the key to the name, and removed the 1st floor door locker and the 2nd floor locker, damaged it, replaced with a new locker, and intruded into the above promotion committee office managed by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness E and H;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. Application of a receipt, each video CD-related statute;

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the relevant Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of joint residence intrusion), Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint property destruction and damage) and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendants cannot be said to have invaded since they were authorized to enter the above office, and even if they were legally dismissed, they cannot be said to have invaded.

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제2조 제2항 제1호

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.16 2013고정4423

-서울서부지방법원 2015.09.23 2014고합372

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.05.31 2012고정440

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.01.11 2012고정448

-대구지방법원 2017.08.11 2016노4535