폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. G and B’s statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged is not reliable, and the Defendants did not make a defamation statement, such as the statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts charged in the lower judgment.
B) Although Defendant A made a statement to the effect similar to that set forth in Article 1-2(b) of the lower judgment, Defendant A did not specify the victim H, and the content of the statement cannot be seen as a statement or false, and thus, Defendant A had an intentional act of defamation on the part of Defendant.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) Defendant A did not have any device beyond the authority of Defendant A, including the right to operate the inspection of this case (hereinafter “the inspection of this case”), to H and his husband (hereinafter “appellant”).
Therefore, since the above inspection was still owned, occupied, and managed by the above defendant, the defendants entered the above inspection.
(2) The crime of intrusion upon a structure can not be established.
B) Defendant A, as a chief inspector of the instant inspection, went into a room to correct the fact by finding out the Defendant and operating the said inspection in mind. Thus, Defendants A’ act constitutes a justifiable act.
B. The sentence of the lower court (a preliminary assertion) is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 1,500,000, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In light of the various circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the statements made by G and B, which correspond to the facts charged, are credibility.
In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the above statements, the defendants can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendants defame the victim H by openly pointing out false facts as stated in the facts constituting the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below's decision.
Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
(ii)..