beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.21 2016고정957

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 14, 2015, at around 22:30, the Defendants came to the victim F’s detached house located in the former North Korea E, and opened a gate that was not voluntarily corrected despite the victim’s prior expression of the intent to tell the Defendants in the house, and entered the house to the ward.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly invaded the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendants' respective legal statements (the third trial date)

1. Statement made by the witness F in the second public trial record;

1. The first police statement with respect to F;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the written opinion statutes;

1. Article 2(2)1 of the relevant Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act on the crime (excluding punishment)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although there is a fact that the Defendants entered the victim's house in light of the summary of the facts charged in the indictment, the victim directly opened a door and entered the door, and there was no fact that the victim prevented the Defendants or demanded to leave the door.

2. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendants can sufficiently be recognized as having infringed upon the victim's residence without the victim's consent. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

A. The victim had a call from the defendants to find his house at the time of the time specified in the facts charged in the case where the police delayed the repayment of the borrowed money to the defendants, but the victim had a late time and family members.

In spite of the fact that the victim has been attached to the complaint submitted.