주거침입등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) there was no legitimate demand from the person having the right to housing at the time of the instant case to leave; and
In addition, in the course of the arrest of the defendant in the act of committing the crime, the reason for the arrest and the right to refuse to make statements did not have been notified and the notification of the arrest was not made. Therefore, the arrest of the above offender is illegal, and therefore the defendant's act of resistanceing to illegal arrest constitutes a legitimate defense.
The defendant does not have a face of the victim E's fingers.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
2. Determination
A. The crime of refusing to comply with the request for eviction is established when the person fails to comply with the request for eviction, and the person who is entitled to make a legitimate request for eviction includes not only the person who is entitled to demand the eviction but also the person who has received the right of representation as to the request for eviction from him/her.
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim D knew that the defendant was entering his house and reported to the police that he was present at the house to the defendant, and it can be recognized that the police officer E and H dispatched to D's house upon receipt of the above report and demanded the defendant to change from the house to the defendant's house, and that D granted the defendant the right to demand the removal of E and H by making the above report.
Since the defendant appears to have reported the police officer D, the defendant also knew that E and H had legitimate authority to demand the eviction of the police officer, it can be recognized that the defendant did not comply with the request even though he knew that E and H had legitimate authority to demand the eviction.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of refusing to withdraw.