(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노1310 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노1310

건조물침입등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the intrusion of a structure 1) The victim did not possess Cheongju-gu B or 102 (hereinafter “the instant structure”).

2) The victim possessed the instant structure

Even if the defendant's act of entering the structure of this case is not a legitimate one, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion on the structure of this case.

3) The Defendant, in the situation where there was a police officer, went out to the instant building without any specific purpose, and only went out to the instant building without any specific purpose, and there was no intention to commit a crime of intrusion on the building.

4) The Defendant’s intrusion on the instant structure constitutes acts that do not contravene social norms.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the act of intrusion on a structure 1) As to the assertion that the victim did not possess any possession, the following circumstances, i.e., the owner of the structure of this case, i.e., ① the owner of the structure of this case, by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below.

G and the victim: (a) on November 5, 2016, a real estate lease agreement was made between G and the victim with a deposit of KRW 25 million; (b) from November 5, 2016 to November 4, 2018 with respect to the instant structure; and (c) the victim occupied the instant structure from the investigative agency to the point of November 1, 2016.

(3) In light of the fact that the victim stated that the victim had occupied the instant structure on the day of the instant case (under the premise that the victim occupied the instant structure), but the victim had neglected it, and that the victim was shouldered the glass of the instant structure, etc., the victim had occupied the instant structure.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.01 2017노2117

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.07.11 2017고정55

-대구지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노2474

-울산지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노1133

-대전지방법원 2018.01.24 2017노3395