logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.04.24 2014고정65
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the owner of the building in Bupyeong-si C, and the defendant B is the husband of D in the joint name of the same building.

On November 6, 2013, around 14:00, the Defendants jointly opened a locked entrance and entered the Fjuk for the reason that the victim, who is the lessee, did not do so even without monthly rent, at the Fjuk point of the operation of the 1st floor victim E of the above building.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded on a structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Witness E;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. The Defendants asserted that they obtained access from the victim to the above main points under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, according to the evidence examined above, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants had the aforementioned main points and the victim jointly managed the keys of the above main points by resolving the legal dispute between the victim and the victim around October 4, 2013. However, even though the Defendants were effective within the limit to show the above main points, the Defendants entered the said main points to remove the entire facilities of the said main points, and even if the victims replaced the key of the said main points on November 2, 2013, the Defendants did not accept the said Defendants’ assertion on the ground that the key of the main points was removed by the victim, and as long as the Defendants entered the said main points, the Defendants were obviously against the above main points.

arrow