Residential Ulsan

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

On July 30, 2019, when a person who is in a relationship of internal relations with the victim Kim Nam-dong and the victim living jointly with the victim of Ulsan-gu North Korea on July 30, 2019, the crime of intrusion upon the victim's residence on August 1, 2019, including intrusion upon the victim's residence through the entrance door opened within the above-mentioned period, around 09:37, August 1, 2019, and around 11:56, August 12, 2019, the court below found the defendant guilty by taking full account of the evidence in its judgment.

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In the Criminal Act, the legal interest in the crime of intrusion is not a legal concept, but a right to residence (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984; 83Do1429, Apr. 24, 1984; 87Do1760, Nov. 10, 1987; 94Do2561, Sept. 15, 1995; 94Do3336, Sept. 15, 1995; 2001Do1092, Apr. 24, 2001; 2007Do20529, Aug. 23, 2007; 2005Do25329, Apr. 24, 2007; 2005Do25148, Nov. 10, 209).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the trial and the court below, the defendant was found to have entered three times at the place indicated in the facts charged, where the victim was living jointly with the victim within the time and in the absence of time. However, according to the evidence, the defendant opened a door to the defendant and let the defendant enter the place. According to the above legal principles, the defendant does not enter the place where the defendant could actually harm the peace of the above house, but entered the place where one or less joint residents approved, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant invaded the above house. Even if it is obvious that the defendant violated the presumption intention of the victim, a joint resident who was absent at the time, even if the right of residence was violated in the above process, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant violated the civil liability even if the victim's right was infringed, it is difficult to conclude that the presumption intention of other joint residential persons absent in the above process did not have any influence on the establishment of tort, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the legal interest and interest of the defendant's dwelling.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges of housing intrusion on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the protection of the legal interest in the crime of housing intrusion and the interpretation of intrusion under the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant on the ground of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as the corresponding part of Paragraph (2) above. As seen earlier, since there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment of the defendant pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Nam-tae et al

Judges Han Young-young