건조물침입등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In a case where a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (the part concerning the crime committed) enters a building in order to spread the former land that constitutes the crime of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, it constitutes a crime of intrusion on a structure contrary to the presumed intent of the manager
B. Sentencing is unfair because the sentence (one hundred thousand won in penalty) imposed by the lower court is too unfasible to the Defendant.
2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of intrusion on a structure, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, since the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of intrusion on a structure.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is justified.
① In light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who was placed in CCTV immediately before the occurrence of the instant case, and the Defendant did not use a toilet on the lower floor and went to the sixth floor; (b) it is apparent that the Defendant was entering the instant building for the purpose of spraying the leaflet despite the Defendant’s vindication.
② The act of spreading leaflets at public places falls under Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.
(3) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s access to the instant building in light of the testimony at the lower court court court’s court court’s decision, even though it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s access to the instant building was contrary to the presumed intention of the manager of the building, to the effect that the act constituting the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act was committed against the presumed intent of the manager of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674, Mar. 28, 1997).