주거침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was that the Defendant did not occupy the Ntel 306 leased to the victim, thus infringing upon the peace of residence. The above room does not fall under the residential space, and the Defendant did not have any intent to infringe on the right to residence, and the victim consented before entering the room.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the victim’s room was leased and used as a residence, and the victim was at the above room on February 20, 2016, before the lease term expires, but the victim was not returned to the Defendant, and the victim did not return the key of the above room to the Defendant. On the day of the instant case, the victim recommended the Defendant to enter the above room. However, the Defendant did not immediately enter the room, and as seen above, the victim was able to do so.
“In light of the following: (a) the Defendant 1 and the victim expressed his intention to refuse to talk with the victim again; and (b) the Defendant and the victim expressed his intention to refuse to talk with the victim again; and (c) the Defendant and the victim have entered the above room without the victim’s consent, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant intrudes on the residence without the victim’s consent and infringes the peace of residence. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant 1 cannot be accepted.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.