주거침입등
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of assaulting is acquitted. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution is instituted.
1. The Defendant in the facts charged maintained the marital relationship between approximately 35 years of age with the victim B (here, 60) and around October 2016, the Defendant filed a divorce lawsuit with the victim B around August 14, 2017, and decided to maintain the marriage with the terms and conditions of “abstining, etc. from the instant apartment (Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul apartment D) by September 30, 2017” in Seoul Family Court around August 14, 2017, and was living separately from September 2017, and the victim E (the victim E, 32 years of age) did not live together.
A. On October 22, 2017, the Defendant infringed upon a residence by opening a door by setting up the entrance of the victims, which would not open the entrance, and opening the door several times, and entering the door to intrude into the residence contrary to the intention of the victims.
B. The Defendant violated the victim’s residence at the above time and place as mentioned above, and committed assault against the victims, by hand, by keeping the victim’s right shoulder and arms in hand, and by keeping the witness E from the right hand, and by keeping the witness E, the victim E did so.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserts that he only entered the entrance and entered the entrance, and denied this part of the charges, and there is each statement of the victims as evidence corresponding to this part of the charges.
First of all, the victim B’s statement purported that “the Defendant opened the door door by breaking off the door door,” and the victim B would normally have accepted or replaced the door door if the Defendant opened the door by force. If the door was opened by force, it would have been displayed or damaged by the string of the entrance correction device. However, even according to the victim B’s statement, it would have not been likely that the door was displayed or damaged even if the victim’s statement was made, and ② if the door was opened by the malfunction of the stop system, it would have been ordinarily repaired or replaced.