건조물침입
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant did not enter a part of the body into the container, and that the Defendant applied for the suspension of contact before the victim deducteds the goods and applied for the suspension of electricity, and thus, the right to possess the container was waived or the victim was understood.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the above facts distorted.
Judgment
Since the relevant legal principles are the legal interest protected by the law as the de facto peace of a structure that manages a structure, whether the manager has a legitimate authority to manage the structure does not depend on the establishment of a crime. Even if an illegal possession under a private law without a legitimate authority is deemed to be under his possession so long as he does not release his possession through lawful procedures. In such a case, the de facto peace should be protected. Thus, even if the right holder is a person under a private law, if he intrudes on the structure without due procedure against the will of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon the structure is established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983). A specific defendant in the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in its reasoning of the judgment on the defendant's assertion, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.
In this case, the judgment of the court below on the facts charged was clearly erroneous.
There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules.
Furthermore, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the circumstances appropriately determined by the lower court.