beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.26 2014고정3041

건조물침입

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are employees of the Incheon Metropolitan City Automobile Maintenance and Inspection Association consisting of registered automobile maintenance business establishments, and are engaged in controlling the automobile maintenance business without registration.

Defendant

A around 10:06 on May 28, 2014, around 10:06, in order to secure evidence that the victim FF's work site in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City is conducting maintenance work, such as the replacement of parts of motor vehicles, at the HH car maintenance shop site, and without registration from the administrative office, Defendant B entered the above work site without the victim's permission, and caused Defendant B to affix a photograph of the vehicle being maintained at that site.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim's structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. CCTV images (12 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a abnormal treatment report and a detailed statement of monetary tax (investigative records 43 pages);

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 319(1) and Articles 30(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 319(1) of the applicable criminal law regarding the selection of punishment. The Defendants entered the above temporary border ① Recognizing that the Defendants obtained the consent or consent from I, the actual operator of the said vehicle maintenance shop, and entered the above workplace; ② Inasmuch as the Defendants accused and prevented crimes through securing evidence for the illegal maintenance of automobiles, they do not constitute a crime. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendants entered the above workplace around May 10:06, even if the main entrance to the above workplace was unfolded and did not inside the workplace, they made a telephone conversation with I and the actual operator on the same day at around 10:12 on the same day.