(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.28 2018노2265 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.28 2018노2265

특수폭행등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. The court below's scope of a party member's trial is dismissed as to the charge of assault among the facts charged in this case, and the remaining facts charged are convicted, and since the defendant appealed only to the guilty part and the part of dismissing a public prosecution not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor becomes final, the scope of a party member's trial

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In relation to misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant entered the victim’s house by opening a door, and thus, although the Defendant’s entry into the victim’s house does not constitute a intrusion on residence, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the case of entering the residence of another person against the intention of the resident, the crime of intrusion on the residence is established when determining the allegation, such as misunderstanding of facts, etc.

“Along with the explicit cases and implied cases, it may be presumed that the opposing intent of the resident is included in the surrounding circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1256, May 30, 2003, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant was at the request of the victim from October 2017 to November of the same year, and the Defendant was at the request of the victim. Although the Defendant was unable to be forgotten, the Defendant did not receive the victim, but the Defendant did not receive the phone, and the Defendant was able to find the victim as the house of the victim, and ② the victim was mixed in the house of this case at the investigative agency on the day of the instant crime, and the Defendant was able to open the door without opening the door.

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 5. 30. 선고 2003도1256 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노2967

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.23 2017노584

-서울동부지방법원 2014.02.13 2013노993

-부산고등법원 2019.01.10 2018노547

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017노3795