성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(주거침입강간)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape) under paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, such as mistake of facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed as escaping from community life within the victim’s residence (hereinafter “instant residence”) stated in the facts charged in the crime at the time of the crime at issue, and thus, the instant residence cannot be deemed as falling under the other’s residence, which is the object of the crime of intrusion
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged regarding the crime at issue on the basis of a different premise (hereinafter “instant facts charged”). In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant
A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the relevant legal doctrine is the legal interest protected by the law as to the crime of intrusion of residence. Thus, whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime. Even if a person is permitted to enter the building in a usual manner due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion of residence is established, and if the act of entering the residence is not normal access through the entrance, the method of intrusion itself must be deemed to go against the above intent unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). 2) The defendant asserted that the above mistake of mistake of facts was substituted by the court below, and the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, at the time of entering the dwelling of this case as at the