logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2013.08.22 2012고정728
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
Text

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000 by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2012 Highly 728"

1. At around 18:00 on April 11, 2012, the Defendants: (a) held a lien on the grounds that the Defendants were unable to receive the construction cost from the victim F; and (b) exercised the right of retention on the grounds that the Defendants were unable to receive the construction cost from the victim F; (c) Defendant A replaced the entrance door locks locking down by the key door door; and (d) Defendant B entered the said house by putting the door door locked replaced by Defendant A.

As a result, the Defendants jointly invaded the Eudio A-dong 202, which is a structure managed by the victim.

"2013, 149"

2. At around 18:00 on April 11, 2012, Defendant A, on the ground that he was unable to receive the construction cost from the owner F, the victim, and exercised the right of retention, Defendant A opened the key door door with G, etc., which was a construction business operator who failed to receive the construction cost, and opened the door door door door door door door door 201, 301, 502, and 503, respectively.

As a result, the Defendant intruded into the above E main room (A) that is a structure managed by the victim in collaboration with the above G, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to witness F;

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, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as stated in the judgment, that the act identical to the facts constituting a crime is a legitimate act to collect claims or by legal mistake, and the Defendants are not guilty.

However, the Defendants did not observe the law.

arrow