(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노1591 | 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) 청주지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노1591

주거침입

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the fact that the defendant committed a crime of intrusion upon residence as shown in the facts charged can be acknowledged, and this cannot be viewed as a justifiable act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of intrusion upon residence

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the relationship between the victim C(81) and the private relationship, and before that, there was no relationship between the defendant and his clan property embezzlement.

Accordingly, the defendant found on April 21, 2016 around 07:10 on April 21, 2016 that he/she was in the house of the above victim in Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

Although there was a high sound called “a door to open the door,” there was no reaction, the victim's house she returned to the front and rear of the house through the part without a fence, and intruded into the victim's residence.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that there was an intentional intrusion on the Defendant’s residence.

It is difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act, and the defendant was acquitted.

1) The Defendant seems to have not been bad until the dispute arises as a matter of embezzlement of clan property as a family relationship with the victim.

2) On the day of the instant case, the Defendant found the victim’s house to talk about the said criminal case, opened the gate and opened the gate, and thought that the victim was not able to have any response, but did not have any response. On the other hand, the Defendant went back to a place without a wall following the gate and sent the gate, and the victim went back to a place without a wall after the gate. The Defendant opened the gate to follow the gate.

3) The victim would not hear her friend with the fact that the defendant would make a speech.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2016.12.08 2016고정917

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.10 2018고단1066

-수원지방법원 2018.12.13 2018고정1400

-울산지방법원 2019.11.08 2019고단3315

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.06.26 2018고단1827