beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.11 2015노1602

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등

Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the instant assembly does not comply with the dispersion order is an contingent assembly, and thus, is not related to the place of the assembly reported in advance, and the dispersion order itself is unfair since it does not deviate from the reported assembly place.

In addition, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have complied with the dispersion order because they were voluntarily dissolved within 10 minutes, and the Defendants cannot be punished on the grounds of non-compliance with the dispersion order since they do not clearly pose a direct threat to the legal interests of others or public peace and order.

B. The victim was opening a door during the working hours of the victim’s co-incept of a common structure. However, the Defendants went through a peaceful door to the front of the blocking in which access control is carried out, and thus, the victim’s management area cannot be deemed to have been invaded.

In particular, in the case of Defendant C, only the employee who had worked on the day immediately before the day of the instant case and has entered the office with the belief that he has a normal right of access to work at the office, and there is no intention to commit the crime of intrusion on the structure.

In addition, the illegality of the defendants' requests for interview by entering the victim's site is excluded because it is a kind of legitimate partnership activities.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail on the grounds that the Defendants asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and on the premise that “a judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” was stated in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

In particular, in relation to Defendant C, the injured party Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute is classified as “the higher level” among important national guard facilities under the jurisdiction of the military.