beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.10.08 2019노3505

주거침입등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant’s act of misunderstanding the fact regarding the intrusion of the instant Moel constitutes an act of infringing the structure managed by the victim and practically impairing peace and peace by unilaterally occupying the said Moel in a situation where there is a dispute over the right of the instant Moel under dispute between the victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of entering the Moel cannot be deemed to have undermined de facto peace by impairing the victim’s or the structure under management, taking into account the following circumstances.

The defendant is the owner of LA, and is the representative director of MA, the owner of WAT.

Considering the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement between the defendant and the victim on the business of the above conference, and the victim seems to have managed the above conference by delegation or employment, etc. of the defendant.

- The fact that the Defendant and the victim did not prepare a document, such as a business partnership agreement on the business partnership of each of the above franchises - The victim paid the Defendant profits from the operation of each of the above franchises, and did not receive or demand its profits from the Defendant - considering financial transactions between the Defendant and the victim - The amount of KRW 600 million claimed to have invested in the Defendant cannot be deemed as investment funds for the construction, etc. of the above franchises. (2) The records are acknowledged by the lower court’s decision. In other words, the victim managed the instant franchise on behalf of the Defendant according to the delegated or employment relationship. The Defendant demanded liquidation of the relationship of delegation or employment, etc. with the victim from around the day of 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28210, Jul. 25, 2017>