공용물건손상등
The judgment below
Part of the Medical Treatment and Custody Case shall be reversed.
The medical treatment and custody claim of this case is dismissed.
The judgment below
(2).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The part of the case of the defendant 1) The house E located in Ansan-si (hereinafter "the house of this case") such as misconception of facts
(2) The judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to entry into a residence intrusion, obstruction of exercise of rights, and obstruction of the exercise of rights, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months and the fine of five hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable, because the defendant entered the house of this case and cut the electric cable of the electrical measuring instruments into the house of this case. Nevertheless, the court below convicted him of the facts charged as to entry into a residence intrusion, obstruction of the exercise of rights.
B. The judgment of the court below at issue of medical treatment and custody is unfair.
2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case
A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto peace of a residence that is managed by the court below, the issue of whether the manager has a legitimate authority to manage the residence does not depend on the establishment of the crime. Even if it is illegal possession under private law without a legitimate authority, his possession should be deemed to be under the possession unless he is cleared by lawful procedures. In such a case, even if a person has a legitimate authority, the de facto peace should be protected. Thus, even if he is a person under private law, if he intrudes upon the residence without due procedure against the will of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4875, Sept. 28, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant enters the house of this case, which is the victim D's residence, without permission