방실침입
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant did not intrude into the toilets for toilets in which the victim was the victim.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. On December 27, 2016, the Defendant entered the partitions for female use in the Esing toilets located in D at Won-si on December 27, 2016, and, from the next partitions, the Victim F (F.S. 28 years of age) taken the cryp while walking the cryp, followed the cryp, followed the cryp, and intrudes into the room occupied by the victim.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that the Defendant’s statement consistent with the victim’s statement that the Defendant stolen the victim, and that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was a fishing vessel after taking a melting fluor while taking a melting fluor and taking a melting fluor, and that the willful negligence of the intrusion of the room is recognized.
(c)
1) The relevant legal doctrine provides that the crime of intrusion upon a residence is practically a legal interest to protect the peace of the residence. Here, the term “infringed” refers to the entry of a resident or manager against the intention of the resident or manager. Thus, even if a person is permitted to enter the building, if the act of entering the residence was committed despite the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established (Supreme Court Decision 94Do336 delivered on September 15, 195). In addition, the term “infringed” of the crime of intrusion upon a residence is a physical intrusion, and it cannot be deemed that the act of leaving the house constitutes an intrusion upon a house.
2) According to issues and recognized facts, in order to establish guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, it is necessary to prove that part of the Defendant’s body affected the room possessed by the victim and went beyond the room.
The following facts may be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below:
(1)