logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.08.22 2013고정4482
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around February 5, 2013, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) and around 07:30 on February 5, 2013, the Defendant intruded into the victim G, H, I, J, K, and F’s residence through the entrance door that did not seem unlocked to drive away the pension manager, etc. residing at the accommodation of the victim F in Chuncheon-si, Chuncheon-si, for the purpose of exercising the Defendant’s right of retention.

2. On February 6, 2013, from around 15:00 to February 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) walked a banner that is under the exercise of the right of retention by occupying the penta construction site in Switzerland E-Japan; (b) prevented the service employees belonging to the Corporation, including the victim F, from entering the site of the penta construction site; and (c) interfered with the victim’s operation management and construction work by force by preventing the employees belonging to the Corporation from entering the penta construction site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness, L, F, J, and M;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F and G;

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the Defendant, with the consent of F, did not jointly intrude upon the residence, since the Defendant entered the penty complex manager’s house with the consent of F, which was the owner of the building. However, according to each of the above evidence in the judgment, the Defendant, around February 5, 2013, was locked at the staff and the manager of the penty complex with the other persons.

arrow