beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal doctrine-misunderstanding of the instant club office is a place where all members can freely open the instant club office to enter. Thus, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion on a structure, and there was no intent to acquire illegal profits in the case of larceny.
B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles (1) since the crime of intrusion upon a structure is de facto protecting the peace of residence. Thus, even if a person permitted access to the structure due to the relation with the resident or manager, etc., if the act of entering the structure was committed even though it is contrary to the explicit or presumed intent of the resident or manager, it constitutes a crime of intrusion on the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do336, Sept. 15, 1995; 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). In light of the circumstances of the case, the defendant's act of entering the club for the purpose of protecting the jointly owned vehicle of the members of the club constitutes a theft or an intrusion on the building, which is contrary to the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(2) As to larceny, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. Considering the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in the event that the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015); (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new data on sentencing; (c) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s decision; and (d) the Defendant has two-time criminal records, including the suspended sentence due to larceny, and there is no agreement with the victims.