logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.27 2018노709
특수주거침입등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendants did not instruct F to commit the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows: (a) around March 2016, the Defendants: (b) removed the provisional building on the instant land, which was managed by D, and had the victim E reside (hereinafter “the instant provisional building”); and (c) conspired to remove the instant provisional building by intrusion upon the instant land via F, a construction business entity, by entering into the instant land.

Accordingly, Defendant B instructed F to remove the instant building on March 2016, and Defendant A, from around 07:02 on March 26, 2016, instructed F to have a telephone conversation with F and several times, and issued specific orders to remove the instant building.

On March 26, 2016, at around 06:30, 2016, F had ten members, who are the removal company, remove the building of this case, and ten members, who are the parts of the removal company, who are the above removal company under the name of this case, installed the building of this case in order to remove the building of this case at the time of the land of this case, and installed the gate and fence attached to the gate, the gate, the gate, and the container vehicle, and the gate and fence installed to remove the building of this case in order to remove the building of this case.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the removal company’s 10 persons, etc. to use multiple force, and carried scrails, kins, container cars, etc., which are dangerous objects, into the victim E’s residence (special intrusion). On March 2016, the Defendants were willing to remove and damage the instant building through F, and Defendant B instructed F, a construction company, to remove “the instant building” around March 2016. Defendant A, from around 07:02 on March 26, 2016, instructed F and F to have telephone conversationsd with the instant building, and issued specific instructions to remove the instant building.

arrow