beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노1930

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not intend to find out the employees of the Defendant A, J, etc., and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) at the E Apartment Management Office (hereinafter “instant Management Office”).

In addition to the application for temporary injunction against interference with business affairs and the filing of civil principal lawsuit, the defendant visited the above management office with the purpose of requesting the management office to leave the above management office in order to normalize the management service relationship of the above apartment.

(2) The Defendant generally allowed entry into the management office of the apartment of this case, and such entry does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence.

(3) The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle is that the crime of intrusion of residence is the protected legal interest of the law, and if the act of entering the residence is reduced even though it is against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion of residence is established.

(2) In light of the above legal principles as to whether the elements of a crime are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007; 94Do336, Sept. 15, 1995). (2) In full view of the following circumstances, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant conspireds with J, etc. to find G on the part of the management office of this case as stated in the facts charged, and intrudes into the management office against the will of the president H, etc. of the management office of this case. The judgment of the court below is justified.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

J. The Director of F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) of F Co., Ltd.