(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2013고정2719

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) 수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2013고정2719

주거침입

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000 and by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A entered into a subcontract for the construction of 7 new housing units and completed the said housing on August 6, 2010 with respect to the total nine parcels, including (9) A/Sari-si D/Sari-si, G/Sari-si.

On October 23, 2009, when the Defendant came to know of the fact that the Defendant acquired the ownership of the said D household under the pretext of the payment in kind of the investment bond against the said D household, the Defendant asserted that he would exercise the lien to recover the claim for the construction cost of the said D and infringed upon the victim’s residence by entering the said victim’s house and entering the said victim’s house located in the said D around July 2012.

2. Defendant B is the denial of the above A.

On December 26, 2012, around 11:00, the Defendant destroyed the locks equivalent to KRW 2.50,000 at the market price by putting the company in a lock hole owned by the victim E-and-locked in order to claim the right of retention, thereby preventing the use of the locks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each protocol of examination of the witness E and F (the possession of the defendant A to be recognized as a lien on the above housing of the defendant A) the possession of the defendant A must be a lawful possession, and each of the evidence and the statement of the defendant A's prosecutorial statement at the time: An example was that the suspect occupied the above building: from May 201 to May 201, the real estate was sold at the auction, and it was occupied from the auction, and since the complainant was not inside the real estate and did not manage it, the complainant was currently using today. The door is the F's statement (the real estate was managed by the complainant according to the 185 pages) submitted by the complainant.

The reply: The fact that the person F was in charge of management is the same.

No. : The suspect is responsible for the management of this real estate by the suspect.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.09 2015나71435

-수원지방법원 2019.01.16 2018고단2131 (1)

-부산지방법원 2017.02.03 2016고정2610

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2017.04.27 2016고정262

-서울고등법원 2020.7.28. 선고 2020노756 판결