폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the place where the defendants invadedd is the foundation C Agency Office (hereinafter “instant office”) and the Defendants were divided into a strike and found not guilty. The court below found the Defendants not guilty.
However, the prosecutor identified the place where the Defendants invaded by the instant office itself.
The Defendants have the right to enter the instant office in the course of business.
Even if E entered the instant office during the new wall hours to bring the recording file possessed by E without permission, and the Defendants’ access is contrary to C’s intention as the management entity of the instant office, and thus, there is a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion).
The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Ex officio determination
A. We examine the reasons for appeal to amend the indictment ex officio prior to the judgment.
In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment, and this court permitted changes in the indictment.
The judgment of the court below is impossible to maintain it as it is (the prosecutor's assertion is related to the changed facts charged, and this is examined below). (b) Defendant A, which was changed in the trial of the court, is the head of the D Department of the Victim C Promotion Agency (hereinafter "the Foundation of this case") which is the victim foundation, and Defendant B is the employee of the above D Department.
The Defendants knew that E, the head of the personnel team of the victim, was holding a recording file held on September 19, 2016 by the personnel committee, which was held on September 19, 2016, and had the victim’s office located in the Daejeon Seo-gu F building on September 25, 2016.
Defendants jointly intruded on the structures managed by the injured party.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.