logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.26 2013노3680
주거침입
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Around March 27, 2009, the Defendant opened a door door that was not corrected in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City(hereinafter “instant house”) and intruded into the structure managed by the victim D, the owner of the instant house.

2. As to the above facts charged, the lower court determined that the court acquitted the Defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, on the following grounds: (a) G who leased the instant house from F with F consented to reside in the said house; (b) the Defendant resided in the said house from March 2006 to December 201; (c) the Defendant made a move-in report with E on March 27, 2009; and (c) the complainant was a person who constructed the said house with F and built the said house; and (b) the Defendant confirmed the fact of the move-in; and (c) the Defendant filed a complaint with F with the effect that the Defendant infringed on the said house at around July 2011; and (c) the Defendant was deemed not directly witness the said house at around the said move-in date; and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal acknowledged the fact that the Defendant entered the instant house (No. 301) in the police investigation on June 22, 2012, and the victim was a sole owner of the said house, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. In addition to the above circumstances properly explained by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case: ① E, the occupant of the housing of this case, consented to the Defendant’s entry.

arrow