beta
Text
The defendant dismissed the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation.
Reasons
1. Around 17:00 on May 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) ordered F to remove eight air conditioners on the market price, which is the victim E-owned by the victim in Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu cafeteria; and (b) required F to remove eight air conditioners from the market price.
Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property by concealing it or other means.
2. The E’s direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is a statement at the investigation agency and the court.
E did not have any talk about the removal of the above air conditioners from the Defendant, but it stated that there was contact with the Defendant on the day before the air conditioners are removed.
However, according to the records, E decided to order the defendant to remove the above D cafeteria by January 14, 2013; E applied the key to the above cafeteria to the defendant around that time; E applied the key to the above cafeteria to the defendant; the lease contract of this case can be acknowledged that the lessee's duty to restore is stated upon the termination of the lease; and the monthly rent of the above cafeteria reaches KRW 15,000,000; and the date and time of the crime stated in the facts charged can be recognized as of May 20, 2013, when four months have passed after the life-saving period; in light of this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant as the defendant demanded the removal of the above cafeteria over several occasions as alleged by the defendant.
(E) A statement that the Defendant was permitted to keep the above air conditioner, but there is no ground to deem that the Defendant permitted the Defendant to keep the air conditioner used by E in the above restaurant near four months with respect to the above building that reaches KRW 15,00,000 per month, and thus, it is difficult to believe the E’s statement in light of this point). Rather, even when each of the above circumstances and the contact was acknowledged by the Defendant that E would remove air conditioner, the act of seeking removal is not considered in light of the circumstances.