logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.03.14 2013고정1946
주거침입미수
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 6, 2013, at around 14:00, the Defendant: (a) was in front of the entrance of the victim D's house located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Dang-gu, 206, the Defendant: (b) her husband E does not open the entrance; (c) her husband E does not open the door; and (d) tried to take the password of the locker No. 1, which was known to verify whether E is in the house, and intrude into the house after the opening of the door; (d) but (e) the Defendant did not intend to report it to the police upon entering the house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The CD;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 322 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant first asserts that D had no intention to intrude into D’s residence.

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence, namely, the Defendant had the intention to intrude into the residence of D at the time of the instant case, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant arbitrarily obtained the password of the locking device installed in D’s house, and added the door door to verify whether the Defendant was the husband of D, and (b) opened the door door to verify whether the Defendant was the husband of D in the house.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

2. In addition, the defendant is the owner of the house in which D is residing, and D and his husband, were in a state of not delivering the house to the defendant. The defendant visited the house in order to meet E, but reached this case. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

The defendant, the defendant, the defendant.

arrow