Seoul Residence

A. Error of mistake

The court below found that "the defendant stayed in the news report bureau room for about two minutes," and "the defendant refused to leave due to sound," but the defendant only remains in the news report bureau room for about 1 minute 15 seconds and 15 seconds of the victim Kim 00, and the defendant only speaks as stated in the facts charged in response to the sound recording that the victim would go. Thus, in light of the conversation between the defendant and the victim, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention to refuse to leave.

B. In light of the fact that the victim is the Director General of the Report Bureau of A (hereinafter referred to as "A") who is a public broadcasting service provider, the victim demanded the withdrawal in a manner that infringes on the defendant's personal rights by making the defendant's request for the release of the defendant's personal rights while making the defendant's request for the release of the defendant's news gathering without any prior consent, and the victim's refusal to comply with the defendant's prior request for coverage over several times, and the defendant found the victim's office to hear the victim's counterarguments related to news gathering without any prior consent, it is not reasonable for the victim to demand the removal of the victim by verbal abuse to the defendant.

B) The Defendant visited the news report bureau room to hear the victim’s identity and service, and sees the victim’s speech close to verbal abuse, and only locked at the news report bureau room. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have practically infringed upon the victim’s peace and residence in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s visit to the news report bureau room, conversation between the Defendant and the victim; (b) the Defendant and the victim’s age, gender, social status, body of body, and completion difference, etc.

C) The Defendant did not recognize that the victim’s “brupt and urine and “the request for evictionting the victim’s verbal abuse,” was not a justifiable demand. Moreover, the Defendant did not recognize that the victim’s visit was lacking legitimacy. As such, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of non-compliance with the removal as a subjective constituent element.

D) Also, considering the fact that the defendant's refusal to leave was a visit for coverage purposes, and that the period of stay is merely a mere 1 minute 15 seconds, it is denied that the defendant's visit constitutes a minor reason for denying illegality. 2) The defendant's visit to the victim was intended to hear the victim's counterargument prior to reporting the victim's report, so the defendant's right to free access to the "information source" under Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Promotion Act"), and the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act as an act under the above Acts and subordinate statutes.

B) The Defendant entered the news report bureau room by the victim of the victim of the victim “B/L and “B/L,” and “B/L,” and “B/L, at a passive level, stayed in the victim’s speech, explaining the reason why “B/L,” and this is merely a passive resistance that does not constitute self-defense against the victim’s abusive language, or that does not violate social rules.

C) The Defendant, entering the news office, has the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of refusing to comply with the request for withdrawal by the victim, the means or method of action is reasonable, and the legal interest protected by law is superior to or equal to the infringement profit, and urgent and complementary. Thus, even if the Defendant’s act does not exercise his right under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant is obligated to give a person who is likely to suffer damage such as defamation, etc. due to the Defendant’s news, so in such a case, the Defendant is obliged to give a person who is likely to suffer damage such as defamation, etc., even if he did not exercise his right under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the Defendant is held liable in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act, since

2. Determination:

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts may be acknowledged. (A) The Defendant, as the reporter of “B” on June 24, 2013: around 46, entered the entrance door inside the building, entered the building inside the office of a trade union, and went to the 5th floor from the elevator office, and continued to enter the sidewalk room.

At that time, the victims had been in front of the editing conference at 2 p.m. in the news office, and searched the relevant articles.

B) The Defendant entered the news report room and asked the victim about the “C report (so called the so-called C report”) by disclosing the identity of the victim.” The victim requested that the victim speaked as 'Isn' without any prior promise, and 'Isn't request 'Isn'. The Defendant failed to comply with the demand by 'Isn', 'Is? Is why Is you should why Is you would am? Is you would am? The victim's body was 00, and the Defendant continued to ask the victim about her body, but the Defendant did not want to ask the victim about her body while I asked him about her. As such, the Defendant entered the news report room and went back to 'Isn' and 'Issn' to 15 minutes until Is' of 15 minutes of 15th of 15th of 100.

(c) In the case of A, a reporter shall be registered as an visitor and shall be issued a certificate of registration in order for him/her to have access to a rooftop, and in the case of ordinary people, a visit certificate may be issued by submitting an application for access or visit.

In the case of A news report stations, the office of the news report bureau may visit the news report bureau by a person who has access to A, but in the case of the news report bureau room, the entrance is installed as an independent space separate from walls. A person who intends to visit the above news report bureau room may visit the news report bureau room through 00, a person in charge, after making a prior promise with the victim.

D) At the time, the Defendant did not have access to A, and did not prepare an application for access or visit, and the Defendant requested coverage to the victim and did not have obtained permission therefor.

B. Whether the refusal to leave constitutes a constituent element

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant entered the news report room managed by the victim, received the request for withdrawal from the victim, followed up to 1.5 seconds, and stayed in the news report room for about one minute and 15 seconds, and eventually, 00 was left the news report room. In light of the ordinary procedure necessary for visiting the news report room for visiting the news report room, the defendant's request for withdrawal from the victim is legitimate, and considering the conversation contents and sustainable time during the request for withdrawal from the news report room for the defendant's act, actual peace that the victim can enjoy in the news report room is infringed.

Since the crime of refusal to leave is an immediate crime resulting from a failure to comply with the request for withdrawal immediately after receiving a request for withdrawal, the crime of refusal to leave is established as long as the defendant's refusal to comply with the request for legitimate withdrawal of the victim and the victim's peace and peace is infringed thereby, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had the intention to refuse to leave because he was living in the news center while recognizing such situation.

C. Whether it falls under the grounds for excluding illegality and the grounds for excluding responsibility

As can be seen from the above facts, the defendant did not have access to a building A through legitimate procedures, and the defendant did not make a prior request for coverage in visiting the news office, and entered the news office room and made a request for coverage to the victim. This act cannot be viewed as legitimate coverage pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, and the victim's request for eviction cannot be deemed as a passive resistance, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, even if the defendant misleads the defendant that he was an act within the scope of the right stipulated by the Newspapers Promotion Act, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Freeboard

Judges' Pension Award