logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.06.13 2013노575
주거침입
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant visited the victim's child-care center for consultation about the revision of the lease agreement with the victim, who is the lessee, and the victim's obligation to comply with the above consultation is a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine,

2. Determination

A. The "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and on an individual basis, under the following: (a) the justification of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) the legitimacy of the means or method of the act; (c) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) the balance between the legal interests of the third protected interests and infringed interests; and (v) the supplementary requirement that there is no other means or method other than the act should be satisfied.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s determination that the Defendant leased the instant apartment (child care center) to the victim in light of the above legal principles, and based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant infringed on the instant apartment against the victim’s intent despite the fact that the Defendant was requested to return explicitly to the victim about the amendment of the contents of the contract, such as the victim’s additional demand for premium, etc., and the purpose thereof is to justify the victim’s infringement of legal interest, which is the peace in residential life.

arrow