logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.11.20 2014노920
주거침입
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have invaded upon the victim’s residence, where he found the victim, and she did so on the wind so that he would fall off, and he did not have taken it out in the entrance where he would have been able to do so.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon a mistake of facts is the legal interest protected by the law in fact as to the peace of residence, the crime of intrusion upon a person’s body is not necessarily established since the whole person’s body should enter into another person’s residence which is the purpose of the crime, and even if a part of the body enters another person’s residence, if the resident reaches the degree of harm to the peace of actual residence, it shall be deemed as meeting the elements of crime. Therefore, the criminal intent of intrusion upon residence does not necessarily require the awareness that the whole body enters another person’s residence, but is sufficiently aware that a part of the body enters another person’s residence.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561 delivered on September 15, 1995). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim consistently stated from the police investigation to the point where the victim was unsatisfed and unsatisfed out of the victim when the victim was found and unsatisfed (the seventh page of the evidence record). ② The defendant talks with the victim, who is the lessee, about the clause that “the victim was unsatisfy” (the 19th page of the evidence record), and it seems difficult to grasp the situation of the method that the victim did not intrude into the residence, and even if the victim went out of the new place to be satisfyed as the defendant's assertion, it is difficult to grasp the situation of the reorganization of the method that does not intrude into the residence.

arrow