(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014노1328

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2014노1328

주거침입

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s house (hereinafter “instant house”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

A) Only one person has the name, and the de facto management was entrusted to G, a licensed real estate agent. The fact that F had a real estate agent enter the instant house is G and the Defendant did not intervene. 2) The Defendant entered into a lease agreement on another house before several days of the instant case and received the deposit, and the Defendant was able to receive the deposit additionally and return the deposit to the victim through a lease agreement on the instant house with F.

The defendant made contact to the effect that he would return the lease deposit to the victim on the preceding day of the case. If the victim knew that the defendant could be returned the lease deposit, the victim would have allowed F to move in.

Therefore, the illegality of the victim's constructive consent is excluded.

3) For the foregoing reasons, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles; ① G, which arranged the lease agreement on the instant house between the victim and F, consistently from the investigative agency to the lower court, had the Defendant removed the warranty unit which the victim had already been placed in the instant house on the day before the instant crime was committed; and even at the time of the instant case, he stated that he requested G to open the door of the instant house so that the Defendant could enter the Fund, and ② G, a broker, only.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.09.23 2014고정740

-서울고등법원 2015.11.06 2015나3749

-수원지방법원 2014.11.18 2013가합28776

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.10 2017가단55259

-부산지방법원 2015.03.27 2014구합3571