주거침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) did not recognize the right of retention for the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to C Building 202 in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Building 202 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and the victim Co., Ltd. unilaterally provided corrective devices to the apartment of this case without any title to refuse a request for the delivery of the apartment of this case owned by the Defendant’s wife G, and the Defendant and his family members were unable to move into the apartment of this case and suffered a lot of damages and mental suffering. In full view of the above, the Defendant’s act of entering the apartment of this case on a bridge was inevitable by realizing the victim’s right of residence against the illegal act, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending legal principles.
2. Determination of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the de facto peace and protection of a structure that manages a structure is a legal interest. Thus, whether the manager has a legal legitimate authority to manage the structure does not depend on the establishment of the crime, but it is an illegal possession under private law without a legitimate title.
possession, unless such possession is unclaimed by due process, is below its possession.
In such a case, de facto peace should be protected. Thus, even if a person has a private right, if he intrudes on a structure without following due procedure against the will of the manager, the crime of intrusion on the structure should be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 2006Do4875, Sept. 28, 2006). To recognize a certain act as a legitimate defense, such act is to defend the present unfair infringement against himself or other person’s legal interests.