logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.26 2015노304
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendants not guilty of the defendants, despite the fact that the defendants violated their residence against the victims' will.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged is the family head of Defendant A, Defendant B is the male head of Defendant A, and Defendant E and F are the mother of Defendant A.

Defendant

A, while finding his husband G, who started about six months before her husband G, thought that G was in a relationship with the victim H and that it was an internal relationship. On February 19, 2014, after receiving a written complaint for divorce, A filed 112 report to detect the field of inter-section traffic and sought the house of victim H along with police officers dispatched.

On February 19, 2014, at around 21:00 on February 21, 2014, the Defendants came to the house of the victim H in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 105 Dong 705, the Defendants opened a door and opened a door to the police officer to receive confirmation, and the victim H opened a door to the police officer, thereby entering the room of the victim H and her children's children's families.

Accordingly, the Defendants infringed upon the victims’ residence in collaboration with the E and F (Suspension of Prosecution on the same day) and three others.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the instant charges against the Defendants on the ground that it was reasonable to deem that the Defendants entered the victim’s residence, and that there was an explicit consent of the victim H, in light of the situation at the time of no particular disturbance, the victim J was deemed not to have been different from the victim’s H’s mother, and even if not, on the part of the Defendants, the Defendants did not have the awareness that there was no consent of the victim H, insofar as there was no such consent.

① Defendants A’.

arrow