주거침입등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are allowed to enter the place where the wife and children live together, and therefore it cannot be the subject of intrusion, and the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case even though the act of going out and going out as a person with parental authority does not constitute the abduction of a minor, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant and the victim C have entered the residence against the will of the resident. According to the conclusion of the judgment on the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles, most of the marriage periods in the workplace of the defendant and the victim C were living in the city of Changcheon, Kim Jong-si, and C was living in the weekend couple, and C did not inform the defendant of the change of the identification number of the apartment entrance of his/her resident from March 2016, and the fact that C did not inform him/her of the identification number, even though the defendant found in the above apartment, C was waiting to open the door from the stairs that he/she did not open the door.
Thus, the above act committed by the defendant constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, which is entered against C's will as the housing owner of the above apartment.
Even if a person who protects and supervises a minor regarding the crime of kidnapping a minor, he/she may be the subject of the crime of kidnapping and inducing a minor, in cases where he/she violates any other guardian’s custody right, or violates his/her own interest by abusing his/her custody right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8011, Jan. 31, 2008). The court below has duly adopted it.