건조물침입등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;
A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that he took out and disposed of melter scrap iron in the construction site with the permission of the aforementioned F and On-site manager E and the lien holder in the construction site with the consent of HJ, the owner of the right to retention in the construction site; and (b) did not intrude into the construction site against the intention of E and arbitrarily take out and disposed of the F-owned pit pumps; and (c) therefore, the Defendant committed intrusion into the building and larceny.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by convicting all of the facts charged in the instant case.
B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s profit was not significant due to the instant case, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced one year to imprisonment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant collected pit pumps in the D Apartment Construction Site (hereinafter “instant site”) at the time of the lower judgment. However, the Defendant asserted that, upon obtaining permission from the victim F to remove and remove scrap metal products at the time, the Defendant entered the construction site and collected pit pumps by entering the construction site and managing the said construction site with the HH’s permission, who was the lien holder at the construction site, and entered the construction site and collected the pit pumps; thus, the Defendant did not infringe the building without permission, but did not steals the victim F’s property. The lower court: (a) managed the instant site.
E consistently issued a warning to the Defendant that the material at the site of the Defendant is seized by a court ruling and that the material at the site of the Defendant would be a problem if the material is taken out or sold, even if it is harsh, at the location of the Defendant around January 2011.
If it is stolen or damaged beyond 400 million won of pit pumps at the time, the problem is the same.