logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.04.12 2016고정1527
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
Text

Defendants are not guilty

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 16:00 on March 20, 2016, around 16:0, Hanam-si D, and 101 leased from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant residence”); (b) the victim’s home boiler was dissatisfied with the operation of the victim’s home boiler using electricity in Defendant A’s residence of the said building; and (c) the victim’s residence electric code connected the said boiler to the said boiler, the Defendants opened an entrance and intruded with the keys kept under the victim’s residence. Accordingly, the Defendants invaded the victim’s residence jointly.

2. Intrusion upon a person’s residence as prescribed by Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of entering a residence contrary to the resident’s intent, and it cannot be said that such act is an intrusion upon a resident’s consent or constructive consent.

In determining the presumption intention of a resident in absence, a comprehensive consideration should be given to the purpose, background, method, frequency of access, time of entry, personal relationship, etc. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants entered the victim’s residence against the victim’s explicit or presumed intent. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it (i.e., legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the Defendants’ act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the benefits of protection and infringement, and urgency, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendants’ act goes against social norms in light of the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the Defendants’ act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the benefit of protection, and the benefit of infringement, etc.). The victim’s dwelling deposit in this case owned by the Defendant B around May 2015, and was hospitalized in the victim’s health due to brain, etc. around December 2015.

arrow