The nature of intrusion into a structure occupied by a person without the right to possess and intrusion into a house;

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest protected by the law to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a person who has a residence or a person who has a right to live in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess is possessed, peace of residence should be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on a building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in executing such right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

Article 319 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 Decided April 24, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No4913 delivered on July 10, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a resident or a guard has the right to reside in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if possession is possessed by an unrelated person, peace of residence should be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes into a building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in exercising his right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do122 delivered on March 26, 1985).

The court below is just in holding that even if the decision of approval of a successful bid on the building of this case is null and void in this view, as long as the possession of the building of this case was transferred from the defendant to the non-indicted Kim Chang-hee through Cho Chang-hee without permission from the defendant, the so-called "the defendant who enters the building of this case" constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and there is no error of law in the law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)