logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.11.17 2017고정474
절도등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) took three thiefs in Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul; (b) brought three 600,000 won of the market price owned by the victim D; and (c) stolen them.

2. Damage to property;

A. On April 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed fluorial tree 1,078,000 won, which was planted at the victim’s house located in Seo-gu E-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul; and (b) destroyed it as a saw.

B. On June 28, 2016, the Defendant, at the victim F’s house, destroyed the amount equivalent to KRW 1,078,000, and KRW 2,450,000, which was planted at the victim F’s house, by giving notice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G, H and D;

1. We examine the evidence photographs, video pictures and videos damaged by property attached to the complaint.

The defendant asserts that the defendant, with the permission of H or D as a legitimate right holder, exists with the relevant embankment and does not steals it.

However, according to the statements of H and D, the relevant room trees must be disposed of by the Corporation, and D only talks with the Defendant to the effect that “after obtaining permission from the G,” and it was not definitely permitted to bring them to the Defendant. However, the Defendant is recognized to bring them to the relevant room without obtaining permission from G.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(2) The following shall be deemed to damage property:

The defendant claims removal from the victim F in accordance with Article 240(1) of the Civil Code, and the victim F in accordance with Article 240(2) of the Civil Code.

However, in full view of relevant evidence such as the statement made by the victim F, the defendant seems to have failed to remove the victim in advance and to notify the victim clearly.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;

arrow