[2] The case holding that in a case where the act of housing intrusion committed by residing in another person's house continuously for a period of two years has become final and conclusive and the act of housing intrusion occurred again before the judgment became final and conclusive, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment is res judicata effect on the ground that the crime of housing intrusion and one inclusive crime for which judgment became final and conclusive

[2] The case holding that in a case where the act of housing intrusion committed by residing in another person's house continuously for a period of two years has become final and conclusive and the act of housing intrusion occurred again before the judgment became final and conclusive, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment is the relation between the crime of housing intrusion and the crime of universality in which the judgment became final and conclusive

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months with prison labor for a crime No. 3 of the decision of the court below.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the admission to residence is acquitted.

Of the defendant's appeal, the part concerning the first-A. crime is dismissed.

A. Legal principles

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "the defendant resided together with his family members from September 1, 2006 to October 2007 and intrudes upon the victim non-indicted 1's residence." The judgment of the court below that "the defendant invadedd the victim non-indicted 1's residence from July 5, 2006 to August 29, 2006 by residing together with his family members in (name omitted) house 4, and the judgment of May 8, 2008 became final and conclusive." Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata effect of res judicata effect against the defendant, which affected the judgment.

B. Error of mistake

On August 1, 2002, prior to November 12, 2002, the Defendant asserted that Nonindicted Party 1 purchased the said electric house No. 4 from Nonindicted Party 2, the Defendant purchased the said electric house No. 4 from Nonindicted Party 2 through Nonindicted Party 3, and paid KRW 80,000 to Nonindicted Party 2 in the purchase price. However, due to the occurrence of the following circumstances, the Defendant sold the electric house No. 4 to Nonindicted Party 1, but the sales contract was concluded to Nonindicted Party 1, and had Nonindicted Party 1 move into the said area, and had Nonindicted Party 1 look at it, and the sales contract was rescinded due to Nonindicted Party 1’s failure to pay the money promised by Nonindicted Party 1. In addition, the sales contract between Nonindicted Party 2 and the Defendant was rescinded due to disputes between Nonindicted Party 2 and the owner of the said building site. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Defendant had engaged in the aforementioned supporting activities by demanding the return of the down payment that the Defendant paid to Nonindicted Party 2 was false at the time of sale (No. 214, and false testimony).

Even if it is not a domestic case, the Defendant heard only Nonindicted 3’s horses, believed the above contents to be true, filed a complaint with Nonindicted 2, 6, and 1, etc., and entirely entrusted Nonindicted 3 with the claim for the return of down payment, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud and deception.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's false accusation and fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of false accusation in the market, and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud, false accusation and intrusion upon residence in the holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Legal principles

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence constitutes a so-called continuous crime, since all or part of the body of a person enters a residence and actually undermines the peace of residence, it does not constitute a separate crime due to a temporary interruption as long as the illegal state due to intrusion upon residence continues, or a separate crime due to reincilation, it constitutes only one act as a single act.

According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant and his family members invadedd the above electric power resource house 4 around 17:10 on September 8, 2005 and continued to reside in the above house for about 2 years and 1 months from around 2007 to October 1, 2007. If the above legal principles are inconsistent, it is reasonable to view that the whole act constitutes a single residential intrusion under the substantive law.

However, according to the records, from July 5, 2006 to August 29, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10,000,000 (No. 2006 high-level 1831) with regard to the entry into a house at the Jung-gu District Court on January 23, 2007, which was part of the defendant, from around July 5, 2006 to around August 29, 2006, and appealed, but the appeal was sentenced by the same court on December 7, 2007 (No. 2007No260), but the appeal was dismissed on May 8, 2008 (No. 2007Do113222) and the above sentence became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the possibility that a separate crime may be established in a case where the entry into a residence continues after December 7, 2007, which was the judgment of the above appellate court, is separate theory, and at least the above facts charged about the entry into a residence before the judgment of the above appellate court is related to the crime of entering a residence for which the judgment of the above appellate court has become final and conclusive, and thus the res judicata effect of the above final judgment

The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of res judicata is acceptable.

B. Error of mistake

Examining Nonindicted 2’s reasoning that Nonindicted 3 had been issued to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, who was lawfully designated by Nonindicted 3, was no longer entitled to receive a separate statement from Nonindicted 1, 200, regarding the sales contract, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, the instant sales contract, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, 200, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, 200, Nonindicted 4, the instant sales contract, were no more likely to have been issued to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and the sales contract, and the fact that Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, who was so designated, was no more likely to purchase the sales contract.

In addition, the defendant was the main offender of the non-indicted 3, and the fact was that there was no contract with the non-indicted 2 on August 1, 2002, and that the contract was made on August 1, 2002 and August 1, 2003 when one year has passed thereafter, it seems that there was no talk about it from non-indicted 3 around August 2002, and that there was a false assertion that non-indicted 3 purchased subparagraph 4 in the defendant's name on August 1, 2002. However, on around August 1, 2005, it was reasonable to deem that the non-indicted 2 made a statement to the same effect directly by the police, and that the non-indicted 3 made a criminal complaint against the defendant under the above argument and made a criminal complaint against the non-indicted 2, etc., and therefore, the criminal defendant was also allowed to acquire and file a criminal complaint.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

We examine the crimes of Article 1-1(a) and Article 2-2(b) and 3 of the decision of the court below.

The crime of false accusation described in Article 1(a) of the judgment of the court below is a serious fault that undermines the authority and trust of the judicial order. The above circumstances and other circumstances are considered to be unreasonable in light of the defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, home environment, criminal records, motive and method of crime, and all of the normal sentencing conditions after the crime.

On the other hand, there is an error of misunderstanding the scope of res judicata that found guilty of a crime of intrusion upon residence as seen earlier. As such, Article 1-B of the decision of the court below that rendered a single sentence on the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 1-B of the decision of the court below that rendered a single sentence. Since all of the part on the crime

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part concerning the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the court below among the defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the part concerning the crime No. 1-b and 3 of the judgment of the court below is with merit, the part concerning the above crime among the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act,

Articles 347(1) and 30 (Frauds) of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Unauthorized Accusations)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Non-Dismissal on Market)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night and jointly living together) in which a judgment becomes final and conclusive and each of the crimes is committed];

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes and Crimes without Permission, and Punishment between Crimes and Crimes of Fraud)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Han Chang-ho (Presiding Judge)