logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노1314
주거침입
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal and the structure, site status, ownership, and use relation of the defendant and the victim D, the entire part of the victim's dwelling in front of the victim's dwelling constitutes "the summary of the victim's dwelling" where the victim was exclusively used, and the defendant has harmed the peace of the victim's dwelling by way of parking the light flag in a situation where the victim is clearly aware of such circumstances, and thus, it should be deemed that the defendant has intentionally infringed upon the victim's dwelling. However, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the victim’s three-way relationship, who serves as a company member.

On September 2, 2014, around 18:30 on September 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) invadedd the victim’s house living in the victim’s house located in Chungcheongbuk-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) without obtaining the consent of the resident, on the ground that there is a stake of 1/4 on the part of the resident; and (c) invaded the victim’s house in his/her residence; and (d) harming the peace of the victim’s house.

3. Determination

A. Defendant’s assertion and the lower court’s determination (i.e., the Defendant asserted that “the instant land was owned jointly by the Defendant and the complainant, and it was merely caused by the light on the part of the land used by the Defendant.”

D. The court below, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, did not regard the land on which the defendant parked in the light flag as a summary of the residence, and it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intentional intrusion.

In view of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

Of the instant land, 1/4 shares are owned by the Defendant [the relevant judgment of civil procedure (the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013 Ghana Branch 20119, Cheongju District Court)].

arrow