주거침입
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. The misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts is that the victim would pay monthly rent to the defendant on February 13, 2018 in telephone conversations with the victim.
In the commitment, if the defendant does not comply with the commitment, the day will open a door at will and change the entrance key number.
The answer was made to the purport that “I wish to know” the word.
Since the defendant received prior understanding or consent from the victim and became to enter the victim's studio as stated in the facts charged, there is no possibility of constituting a crime of intrusion on residence or illegality is dismissed.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the legal doctrine, that is, the victim did not allow or consent in advance to enter the victim’s studio by the police.
The defendant stated that he had access to the victim's room at will without going through legitimate legal procedures, such as a scam lawsuit, and that the defendant refused a request of the victim to inform the victim of the password changed to the scam, and that the defendant did not remove goods within the scam by February 24, 2018, and that the defendant would dispose of the defendant's room at will. On the other hand, the recording record submitted by the defendant was made after February 14, 2018. The record is a conversation between the defendant and the victim, and even according to the recording, it is nothing more than that the victim respondeds that he would avoid the defendant's scam delivery. The defendant's scam and consented finally to the defendant's scam at will.
In light of the fact that it is insufficient to see, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the circumstances before and after the instant case, etc., it is difficult to view that there was the victim’s understanding or consent with respect to the Defendant’s studio access
Therefore, the defendant-appellant.