logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.28 2015고정2770
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
Text

Defendant

C Each fine of KRW 2,00,00,00, Defendant A, B, D, and E shall be punished by each fine of KRW 1,00,00,00.

The defendants are the defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, around 15:50 on June 11, 2015, came to the residence of the victim H (32 Do) and victim I (32 years old), and entered the said residence after removing the locking device.

Accordingly, the defendants jointly invaded the victims' residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness I and H;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to I (including the part concerning the statement made by H);

1. Each police statement made to I and H;

1. Written Statement;

1. On-site photographs and CCTV extract photographs;

1. Application of on-site CCTV CD-related statutes;

1. The Defendants: Articles 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); and Article 319 of the Criminal Act stated in the indictment appears to be erroneous.

(Selection of Penalty)

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

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

1. The summary of the assertion was that the Defendants entered the G 4 block 304 unit of the Yongsan-gu G apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). However, the victims were unaware of the fact that they were living therein, and there was no intention to intrude into the residence.

Even if not, in light of the fact that the victims occupied the apartment house of this case without permission, and the defendants entered the apartment house of this case without any choice in order to carry out the sale and management work of the apartment of this case, the defendants' act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus is dismissed from the illegality.

2. As to the assertion that there was no intention to intrude upon a house first, the victims, which were acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, shall be between husband and wife.

arrow