logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.12.18 2015고정864
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
Text

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,00.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2015 High Court Decision 864]

1. From August 7, 2014, at around 11:45, Defendant B and C’s building subsidenceed the victim G in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (former) which was managed by the victim G in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon. The fact was that the Defendants, despite not possessing a conclusive right, such as ownership, to the scrap metal, etc. accumulated on the site of the above H H open storage site, infringed jointly upon the structure bypassing the locked which is corrected by the locks, and by entering the front door through the lock door.

2. On August 7, 2014, Defendants A, B, and C infringed upon a structure jointly by admitting the structure into the said camping site in the same manner as described in paragraph 1, around August 17, 2014.

[2015 High Court Decision 1092]

3. On August 13, 2014, at around 09:10 on August 13, 2014, Defendant C, along with I and J, invadedd the structure jointly by entering the said site in the same manner as the entry in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

[2015 High Court Decision 864]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, C, and B

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Entry of the defendant in part of the suspect examination protocol by the prosecution against the defendant A and the statement G;

1. Statements in each police interrogation protocol against Defendant B and C

1. Gu H photographs, on-site photographs, and photographs of the suspect who intruded with a structure (2015, 1092);

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Some statements of each police interrogation protocol against the defendant, I, and J

1. On-site CCTV Defendant A did not have any awareness that he entered H’s camping site at the time of the instant case, but did not go against the will of the manager. Defendant B and C asserted that the crime of intrusion upon residence is not established on the ground that Defendant B and C had an office installed in the instant camping site from August 1, 2014 to occupy the camping site in a peaceful and public performance manner.

The crime of intrusion upon residence is the legal interest of the peace of the dwelling.

arrow