logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.08.19 2016고정318
주거침입
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 23, 2015, at around 11:50, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim F, in the house of the victim F, the victim was in his/her custody, making physical color and photograph of the victim, and infringed upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. The results of the reproduction and viewing of CCTV images;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by field photographs and CCTV closures;

1. The Defendants: Articles 319(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, the “building” which is the object of intrusion at the victim’s house does not correspond to the above summary, which is the object of intrusion upon residence, includes not only the building itself, but also the above summary attached thereto, in a strict sense in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion upon residence is practically a legal interest to protect the peace of residence. However, the above summary is clearly revealed from the objective point that the above summary is that the land adjacent to the building is installed with a boundary from the outside and is provided for use of the building or that the outside person is not allowed to have access without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14643, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the victim was not installed artificially in his house, but has clearly clarified the boundaries with the outside, such as trees, trees, vinyl, plastic houses, etc., and the fact that the victim does not have access to the surrounding land, but also has the form of access to the land and its surrounding area.

arrow