beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.28 2015노810

주거침입

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that even if following the F’s legal statement by the witness F and the Defendant’s vindication, the Defendant was out of the instant house at the time of the instant crime, and that the victim’s house was located in the instant house, and that the Defendant also stated to the effect that “the Defendant was in the custody of the victim for house repair” in the lower court’s court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was deprived of the victim’s possession of the instant house and infringed upon the said house.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 18:00 on April 16, 2014, the Defendant came to the house of the victim D, who was located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and was unable to receive the refund of KRW 1100 million from the previous victim, and the said house was voluntarily auctioned and transferred to E’s name, so that E would be able to obtain the order of the victim’s household, etc. at the said house, thereby infringing upon the victim’s residence, for the purpose of receiving dividends.

B. As to the judgment 1), the court below stated that the defendant was in need of continuously occupying the house of this case even in order to secure the deposit money, and the defendant was also in the key other than the key to the victim. The investigative agency and the court below stated in the court below that "at the time of April 16, 2013, he left his house in the house of this case, and he was in the house of this case and disposed of it separately." Furthermore, since the defendant was living in the house of this case, since his house of this case was damaged considerably to the extent that fung was damaged, the victim as well as the defendant were unable to actually reside in the house of this case, and unlike the testimony that he was living in the house of this case.