[공용물건손상·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(야간·공동주거침입)][미간행]
[1] The nature of the crime of aggressioning a structure in a case where a structure for which the entry of the general public has been permitted enters into such structure for the purpose of crime such as destroying the facility (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that an act of entering an above article into an article for the purpose of compulsory removal without legitimate authority, which is an article for public use, which was kept in custody of an article for an article for the promotional watch constitutes a crime of intrusion upon a structure
[1] Article 319 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 319 of the Criminal Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674 delivered on March 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1289)
Defendant 1 and three others
Defendants
Attorney So-young et al.
Changwon District Court Decision 2006No258 Decided September 28, 2006
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Even though a building is permitted to enter the general public, if the building enters the place against the explicit or presumed will of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon the building is established (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2674 delivered on March 28, 1997). Thus, in a case where the building, the entry of which is permitted to enter the general public, is committed for the purpose of crime, such as destroying the facility, etc.
In light of the above legal principles, it is just that the court below recognized the fact that the defendants entered the above suspected article for the purpose of compulsory removal without legitimate authority, which is an official object under custody in Blululuan, as a crime of intrusion upon a structure, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of intrusion upon a structure.
2. Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 2 guilty of the crime of intrusion on the structure and damage to public goods, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to co-principals as alleged.
3. According to the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where the Defendants were sentenced to a more minor fine, the grounds that the sentencing of the sentence is unfair cannot
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)