beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendants shared C living together with Defendant B’s wife on a unanimous basis; (b) from June 21, 2019 to June 27:56, 2019, the Defendants entered the joint entrance door of the Da apartment apartment unit in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, and went ahead of the victim E (68 years of age, female)’s house, and became front of the entrance door of the victim E (the victim). Defendant A takes a personal phone, and Defendant A took a personal phone, “I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back,” and “I am back, I am the door,” and “I am the door,” and am the door, so doing.
Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded upon the victim’s residence.
2. Determination
A. Although the crime of intrusion upon residence is protected by the law, the crime of intrusion upon residence refers to “the peace of a de facto residence” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7186, Mar. 10, 2016). However, “infence” under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act stipulating a crime of intrusion upon residence refers to physical impairment that a perpetrator’s body should enter the residence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6990 Decided November 15, 2007). B.
However, even if only the facts charged in the instant case alone, it does not include any content that the Defendants’ body part of the body was entered into the dwelling, and the victim appears in this court as a witness and clearly states that the Defendants’ body was not entered the dwelling.
C. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement that the Defendants posted the front door before the victim’s house was not reliable (the victim stated that the victim was unable to find the door at the time when the victim confirmed the closed-circuit box) and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendants opened a door in a somewhat large voice, or told the defendants to see a defect in the door, and it is difficult to see that the peace of a de facto residence was broken. Accordingly, the victim’s statement that the victim was not able to lead the victim to enter the dwelling was a de facto residence.