logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 영덕지원 2013.08.14 2013고정20
건조물침입
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of E in Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, U.S., and the victim F is the person who leased the above E from the Defendant for two years from July 30, 2010.

On August 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) refused to deliver the entrance door of the E in a civil lawsuit against the return of the facility costs of the E inn; and (b) forced the E inn's key kept by using the knife to open the direction door of the E in a knife and intrude into the structure managed by another; (c) even though the lease contract period for the E inn's library concluded with the victim has expired; and (d) the Defendant infringed on the structure managed by another by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Partial statement of the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes stated in a criminal investigation report (Attachment of a detailed statement of electric consumption), a criminal investigation report (a counter investigation by police officers visiting a site), and a criminal investigation report (Submission of a written complaint);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. The Defendant, with the consent of the victim that “an access to a door is good,” opened the door as stated in the facts charged in this case, and thus, did not intrude into the Enbs contrary to the victim’s intent.

B. Since the victim was not in operation since early 2012, the victim was not in operation of E, the victim was not in control and management of the victim at the time of the defendant's entry into E inn.

C. The entry of the Defendant into the E is neglected by E, such as the victim’s failure to hand over the E to the Defendant, even though the lease contract between the Defendant and the victim was terminated.

arrow