폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동건조물침입)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of Defendant A’s grounds for appeal
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) is one-half of the right holder of the site of the factory and the building including the transformation room, and the Defendant, as the Director of the J’s Management Office, is between the transformation room and the new factory entrance in the judgment of the lower court, which is a public passage. As such, the Defendant’s entry into the N plant does not constitute
② The Defendant found out that Co-Defendant C listed in the lower judgment and conspireded with C to commit a crime only with CCTV lines.
③ Since “L company” was illegally installed the keyss and CCTVs of the substations by collecting management expenses from occupants while managing a factory site and substations after the expiration of the term of lease, it shall be deemed that the J is the owner of keys and CCTV in line with the building, and even if not, it shall be deemed as a justifiable act.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts
A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is the protected legal interest of the law, the issue of whether the resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of crime. Even if the resident or manager is permitted to enter the building in a usual manner due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intent of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the act of entering the house was committed despite the expressed or presumed intention of the resident or manager. In a case where the entrance is not a normal entry through the entrance, unless there are special circumstances,
(Supreme Court Decision 94Do336 delivered on September 15, 1995). Whether any act constitutes a legitimate act is determined.