폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.
1. The summary of the facts charged is between the Defendants, and Defendant A, around October 13, 2012, had a lot of legal disputes, such as the victims E (7 years of age), victims F (72 years of age), married couple, and pents installed in the adjoining area of the Defendant’s mother D, causing injury to the said F, and the said F was subject to suspension of indictment at the head office of the original district public prosecutor’s office, and had a good appraisal against the victims.
On October 20, 2013, at around 19:00 on October 20, 2013, the Defendants: (a) sent a warning to the victim’s husband and wife to prevent the said D from bullying in the future; (b) opened a door door that was not corrected without the consent of the victims; and (c) entered the entrance of the ward.
2. The Defendants denied the facts charged to the effect that the Defendants did not infringe upon the victims’ residence, but did not have any intention to infringe upon the victims’ residence, on the following grounds: (a) the gate was opened in a state where they did not hear any speech in front of the victims’ gates; and (b) at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, asked who is the victim E; and (c) they expressed their status.
According to the records, the following facts are recognized.
① The parents and victims of the Defendants have been living in adjoining areas for a long time on one’s boundary.
In October 2012, the parents and victims of the Defendants caused conflicts due to the establishment of fences, etc., and the Defendants warned the victims that they would be frightened, and tried to find the victims' house in order to speak about the victims' water supply supply problems in the vicinity of their house.
② The Defendants divided labels into the victims’ house gates.
The personal phone in the victim's house does not have a monitor, so the visitors can be confirmed only by voice. The victim F divided the Seodaemun Liber without properly ascertaining who is the person who is subject to labeling. The victim F is the victim F.