logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.04.05 2012노2363
재물손괴
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the victim is obligated to order the removal of the vinyl house of this case, and even if the victim has given prior consent to remove the vinyl house of this case by his own means, the victim's consent was withdrawn before the removal of the vinyl house of this case. Thus, the defendant, without permission, destroyed the vinyl house of this case. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the basis of unreliability evidence such as the witness E's statement, etc.

2. Around November 10, 201, the Defendant destroyed the said plastic houses, etc. owned by the victim, by arbitrarily removing the total market value of KRW 36 million, including the 50m, width, 7m, height, 4.5m) and the agricultural-related fixtures installed therein, from the farmland of Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 201, the victim D, and destroying the said plastic houses, etc., which are owned by the victim.

3. The lower court determined that: (a) around 2008, around the time when the instant vinyl was installed, the Defendant agreed to the effect that, if the landowner wishes to remove the said vinyl, removal of the said vinyl was prevented; and (b) thereafter, when D collapses of the vinyl and resulted in leaving it unattended, it was removed by the Defendant around November 201; and (c) at the time, it was reasonable to view that at the time the Defendant’s removal of the said vinyl was in accord with the prior agreement with D; and (d) it was difficult to view that the Defendant was aware or expressed an intent to remove the said vinyl without obtaining D’s consent.

4. Where the matters to be judged by the political party can be used for the original purpose of use, or where it is possible to be used even for other purposes, it may be the objects of the crime of causing property damage, which has property value or utility; and

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5207 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.

arrow