주거침입등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) The Defendant and the aggrieved parties are those between the second and fourth floors of the same building.
At the time of the instant case, the Defendant only entered the second floor entrance with the victim living in order to communicate with him in connection with the lending of the Cheongju, and did not intend to intrude into the residence.
2) The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the victim did not have been injured by the Defendant’s act.
B. Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence (700,000 won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable for the defendant to be sentenced.
2. Determination
A. The crime of intrusion upon residence alleged to be erroneous is a legal interest to protect the peace of a de facto residence. If the act of entering a residence was committed even though it was contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of intrusion with the victim’s intent to intrude upon residence, and with the victim’s house view.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
① Although the Defendant and the victim were in the same building, at the time of committing the instant crime, there was a gap between the two parties at any time and at any time, it was understood that the relationship was up to one another as the relationship was not limited due to a dispute over the building under the husband’s name at the time of the instant crime.
It does not seem that it does not appear.
Even before the crime of this case, even before the defendant demanded her flocks, the victim seems to have rejected the request.
② According to the recording records at the time of the instant case, the victim’s entry into the victim’s house is why:
who enters, whether he or she is aware of
The phrase “assumed” and the word “assumed” are clearly expressed.