건조물침입등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (guilty) 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant entered the building as indicated in the lower judgment that was allowed to enter the public (hereinafter “instant building”) through the entrance door, and thus there was no intention to intrude into the structure.
As long as the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is not established against the defendant, the defendant entered the building against the presumed will of the building manager.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The act of the defendant entering the building of this case does not constitute the elements for the crime of intrusion on the building.
2) The punishment of the lower court is heavy.
B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant’s act of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles (not-guilty part) in the instant building spawn the former head of the water bags on the face of the end constitutes “a person who recklessly spreads advertisements, etc. at public places” under Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.
2) Improper sentencing (guilty guilty part) sentencing is light of the lower court’s sentence.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence examined by the lower court’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the Defendant, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.
The act of the defendant entering the building of this case constitutes the elements for the crime of intrusion on the building.
The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.
(1) The Defendant entered the building of this case to spread the leaflet on a rooftop as soon as he/she goes to the rooftop.
section 30.
(2) The act that the defendant spreads the leaflet on the rooftop shall constitute a crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act as follows:
Even if access by ordinary people is allowed as a commercial building, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s entry into the building of this case for the purpose of spreading the leaflet, which is an act of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, is contrary to the constructive intent of the manager of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674, Mar. 28, 1997).