Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

[2018 High Court 344] Defendant 2018

2. 9. Around 16:20, around 16:20, the victim C opened the entrance door and intruded into the entrance door without permission of the Daejeon Seo-gu D, 103, which is a resident of the victim C, thereby impairing the peace of residence.

[2018 High Court Decision 345]

1. On February 6, 2018, the Defendant violated his/her residence by reporting that his/her spouse C enters the victim’s house at the victim E house located in Daejeon Seo-gu D and 103 around 11:20 on February 6, 2018, and following up to the following measures to verify it.

2. The Defendant was at the above date, time, and place of the assault, “I am fy, and why is the victim?”

“In addition, 10 times the left-hand head of Having Lina, and continuously assaulted Hashes on several occasions due to his/her birth.

3. The Defendant damaged property by putting one cellular phone (Tallon A3 in Samsung Gallon ju) equivalent to KRW 230,000 at the market price, which was owned by the said victim at the above time and at the above location.

Summary of Evidence

[2018 High Court Decision 344]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. A letter of arrest of a flagrant offender (2018 high class 345);

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. C’s statement;

1. Each damaged photograph;

1. Application of investigation reports (2 beams) and investigation reports (related to damage to property) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence, the selection of fines), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence, the selection of fines), and Articles 366 (the point of damage to property and the selection of fines) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (at the time, the Defendant was in existence with his spouse C and filed an application for prohibition of access with the court. Thus, C’s implied permission was granted.

It is difficult to accept the defendant's argument that he/she started to think of, and fully recognize the defendant's intention of intrusion on residence.

at the time of this Part.