The Defendant is the head of the management office of the “D” building in Bupyeong-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul.

On February 17, 2014, from around 15:00 to 16:00, the Defendant opened the entrance door of the commercial building, which was kept in the management office, and infringed upon the structure managed by the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning the F;

1. A copy of a real estate lease agreement or a copy of a commercial building lease agreement;

1. On-site photographs and damaged photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 200,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (amount of daily conversion: 100,000 won);

1. The assertion and determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, Apr. 1, 2007)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant, as the head of the building management office, entered the building management office at the request of the lessor, has no intention to intrude the defendant, and constitutes a justifiable act.

2. The crime of intrusion upon residence is classified as the protected legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence. Thus, the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend upon the establishment of the crime, and even if the occupation of the person who has no right to possess is the possession, the peace of the dwelling must be protected. Thus, if the right holder intrudes upon the building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983