1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

Teachers (recognizedd Crime Prevention and Intrusion into Recognized Crime)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Recognized Violation of Name of Crime)

(c) Defamation;

1. A. (a) Red○○ (42***********) and the president of a university.

Seo-gu, Daejeon:

2. Omission below the place of registration:

2. (b) Note D (5********) and the Vice-President of an O university.

Daejeon: Not more than Daejeon Daejeon:

6. Omission of the title of registration:

3.(b)The maximum (63*********), O University administrative Secretary-General.

Seo-gu, Daejeon:

Reference domicile Daejeon: Omission below the Posi-gu

Epication (prosecutions) and in the order of good offices (public trial)

Attorney Yang Hong-hoon (for the defendant)

July 11, 2013

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

On August 24, 2012, Defendant Hong○ requested that the faculty room be unfolded by the university after he was removed from the above university on August 24, 2012, Defendant Hong○○, * the president of the university, the state ① the vice president of the above university, and the defendant last president of the above university. In addition, Defendant Hong○ demanded that the faculty room be unfolded by the university after he was removed from the above university on August 24, 2012, but he was expected to dispute the validity of the removal by means of filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the removal, and thus, he sent a reply to the university and rejected the teaching room.

이에 피고인 주①①, 최◎◎은 피고인 홍○○에게 교수실 인계를 둘러싼 피해자들과의 진행상황을 수시로 보고하여 오던 중, 2012. 10. 16.경 ▣▣대학교 총장실에서 최종적으로 피해자들의 교수실을 비우겠다는 보고를 하였고 피고인 홍OC도 이를 승낙하였다.

그리하여 피고인 주①①, 최◎◎은 위 대학 관리팀장인 노, 관리팀 직원인 유Ⅲ Ⅲ, 문▦▦, 한NS, 전, 김▩▩과 함께 1. 2012. 10. 16. 16:00경 위 대학 내에 위치한 피해자 이□□의 교수실에 임하여 피고인 주①①, 최◎◎은 한NS로 하여금 보조키를 이용하여 잠겨진 교수실 출입문을 열게 하고, 노, 유ⅢⅢ, 문▦▦, 전, 김▩▩은 교수실 안으로 들어가는 방법으로 피해자의 방실에 침입하고,

2. From October 17, 2012, around 10:30 on October 17, 2012, the professor room of the victim Kim Il-Hy, located in the above university, was replaced by the victim’s room in the same manner as the above paragraph 1. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the old, etc. to intrude into each room of the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement in the witness Kim Il-chul, Kim Il-young, and this family;

1. 증인 백◆◆의 일부 법정진술

1. Part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect against the Defendants

1. Each protocol of the police statement on the Kim Bright, Lee Jong-chul, Kim Jong-tae, and leap○;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 319(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code; Selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the assertion of Defendants and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination on the allegation that the protected legal interest of entry into residence has ceased

A. Summary of the assertion

On August 24, 2012, the victims did not work normally in the faculty room after being removed from a school juristic person 00 educational institute on August 24, 2012. The victims did not file a petition or lawsuit until the time of the instant case, which is protected by the law of protection of the law of protection of the crime of intrusion of residence, were extinguished, and the school authorities responsible for maintaining and managing the room have entered the room to maintain and manage it, and it cannot be said that the school authorities infringed the room against the will of the victims.

B. Determination

(1) Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto residential peace and interests, the issue of whether a person who has a residence or a guard has a right to live in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it is an possession, the peace of the residence must be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on a building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3137, Oct. 27, 2007). "An occupied room" under Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to a single partition actually controlled within a building, and "infence" refers to an act of entering a residence, etc. against the will of a person who has no right to possess it, and it does not necessarily require to receive any resistance.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the victims worked as professor at a university, controlled others' access by key, etc., controlled and managed them by using various books, office fixtures, etc. as laboratories, and occupied them at the time of the instant case without ordering them to be ordered even after the removal from office for the victims. In light of the above legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the legal interest protected in the crime of intrusion upon residence was extinguished at the time of the instant occurrence.

In addition, the victims dispute the validity of the removal disposition by means of filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of the removal of each of the instant teaching rooms with respect to the certification of the content of the request for transfer of the teaching research room under the name of the defendant Hong○○, so long as the defendants clearly expressed their intention that each of the instant teaching rooms cannot be transferred, if they entered each of the instant teaching rooms against the intent of the aforementioned victims, it constitutes "influence in the entry into the room."

2. Determination on the assertion as to whether a co-principal is constituted

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) The Defendant Red○○ received a report from the Defendant’s largest victim’s professor room at the place where the Defendant’s State ① was on the ship, and the Defendant’s sknife the victim’s room at the snife.e., “it was well treated without any violation of the law by obtaining advice from an expert,” and there is no room to regard it as a functional share of the accomplice’s act.

(2) Defendant 1’s state ① refers to Defendant Red ○○’s transfer of the teaching room as well as to observe it at the scene of the removal of the teaching room of this case on the ground that there is a concern that Defendant Red ○○ may well have an opportunity to make a reference, and there is a concern for the victims to have a bad will. Therefore, Defendant’s behavior division or conspiracy relation is not possible.

B. Determination

(1) In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of the intent to do so in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the conspiracy is held as a co-principal. As a result, even if there was a person who did not directly participate in the conduct, he/she shall be held liable for the conduct of the other co-principal. Such conspiracy may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules even if there was no direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 200

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, namely, ① Defendant RedO is the president, who is the last person in charge of all the duties of the OOOOO, including the responsibility for the management of each of the OOOOO's rooms. Defendant ① is the vice president of the above university, who assist Defendant Hong○, the president, as the head of the administration division of the above university, and ② the Defendants were responsible for the management of the facilities of the above university. ② The Defendants demanded the victims to transfer each of the above demand (the above demand was made through the mail proving the contents of the official seal, and the official seal was prepared by Defendant RedOOO's request to the victims after the victim's removal, and each of the above demand to remove the OO's report of this case was made under the name of each of the above victims. ② Defendant RedO's request to remove the professor's opinion to each of the above victims after the victim's removal.

It is necessary to assume criminal responsibility as a criminal liability.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake in law

A. Summary of the assertion

Since the Defendants believe that it is lawful to transfer the victims to another place through consultation between the labor company and the lawyer, they are not responsible for the mistake of the law as stipulated in Article 16 of the Criminal Code, and there is no illegality or possibility of expectation.

B. Determination

(1) The Defendants and their defense counsel asked the attorney-at-law about the removal of each teaching room of this case in the course of the Defendant’s examination, and once the advisory attorney-at-law asked the victims to order each of the teaching rooms of this case, and if the victims refuse to comply with the request for instruction even though the victims were given sufficient time according to such instruction, they provided advice that the acts of entering each of the teaching rooms of this case and moving the victims to the teaching room of this case for the maintenance and management of the university facilities of this case constitute legitimate acts. The Defendants asserted that the acts of removing the professors of the victims against the intent of the victims constitute a mistake in the law before determining whether they constitute a mistake in the law constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, such as the contents of advisory counsel.

(B) Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that "An act under the law, such as an act due to work, or any other act that does not violate social norms, shall not be punishable." Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act should be reasonably and rationally determined depending on specific cases. In order to recognize a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000).

(C) As seen earlier, since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest protected by the law, the issue of whether a resident or a guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime. Even if a person without the right to occupancy occupies the building, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, if the right holder intrudes on the building, etc. without following the procedure prescribed by the law, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established. The victims clearly expressed their intent that each of the above teaching rooms of this case cannot be transferred because they can no longer be seen as a legitimate act of the above university, even if they did not use each of the above legal interests as a legitimate act of the professor of this case, such as the removal of each of the above facilities, even if they did not follow the procedure prescribed by the law.

(2) Review of errors in law

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "An act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." It generally recognizes that an act of misunderstanding is an offense but it does not constitute a crime permitted under the Acts and subordinate statutes in one's special circumstances. Whether there is a justifiable reason or not should be determined depending on whether the act of misunderstanding that one's own act was not aware of illegality as a result of failure to act of misunderstanding that one's own act was likely to have been committed if it had been able to examine or inquire about the possibility of illegal act of misunderstanding, and that there was an opportunity for misunderstanding that one's own act was not committed by ○○○○○○ government to remove a building without permission, in light of the legal advice and advice of the victims, the degree of efforts necessary for recognizing illegality, and the social group of the victims, and the contents and advice of each of the Defendants' voluntary removal of the article 208Do526, 208.

(B) Even if the Defendants sought opinions from experts, such as attorneys-at-law and labor companies, and trust their opinions, the content of such opinions is nothing more than an independent opinion on whether the Defendants’ arbitrary removal of the faculty room of the victims would be permitted by social norms, and as seen earlier, the Defendants’ trust in the above opinion alone cannot be deemed as making full efforts to recognize the illegality of the instant crime.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendants and their defense counsel's above arguments are not accepted as they are without merit.

In light of the fact that there are no criminal records against the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing, there are circumstances that may be considered in the course of the instant crime, and that the Defendants appear to have been kept in custody by adequate means of the victims’ things, etc., the elements of sentencing favorable to the Defendants are considered. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, including the following circumstances, the sentence against the

Judges Kim Jong-tae