logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.12.18 2020노911
주거침입
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not intentionally enter the victim’s residence.

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant in the instant charges is at all not aware of the victim B (56 years of age).

On June 5, 2019, at around 05:05, the Defendant, at around 05:05, had the victim's residence in Kimhae-si C apartment D, was drunk and opened the entrance door in an influence and infringed upon the victim's residence, such as the distance between the room and the inside.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant discovered the rest of the victim's house under the influence of alcohol to his house at the time of the occurrence of the instant case. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the instant facts charged are beyond reasonable doubt, and the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts, and the defendant's appeal pointing this out has merit.

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not escape until the police officer went into the victim’s house, upon the victim’s report, and was present at the scene without going through the victim’s house. The Defendant’s act, which did not leave the scene until the police officer went out of the scene, is difficult to view as the act of a person intentionally intruded on another’s residence. 2) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was unable to teach the victim’s house as to the developments leading up to entering the victim’s house.

arrow