beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle), the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant invadedd the victim's residence against the victim's will in opposition to the victim's D's common view, and even according to the relevant precedents, the elements of the crime of intrusion upon residence are satisfied.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of intrusion upon residence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Around February 25, 2014, around 21:40 on February 25, 2014, the Defendant found the instant facts charged at the home on the ground that it does not contact with the victim who embezzled company funds in front of the headquarters of the victim C and C, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 202 Dong 804, and D’s house, thereby leading to a peace in residence by avoiding disturbances between about 20 minutes, including a hand and abundance of the entrance.
B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the defendant takes a race in the apartment corridor of D, namely, (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that he entered the residence of D, and (c) the defendant has entered the residence of D, and (d) the defendant was entered the joint entrance to the joint entrance in order to interview D with D who would not contact with D without permission due to embezzlement and absence from office; (b) requested D to contact him for the resolution of the embezzlement case on the day of the instant case; and (d) asked D to contact him for contact on the following day due to the circumstances, and responded to contact D to contact D on the following day.
Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the defendant could not be deemed to have entered the government or the defendant's intention, the court found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the defendant infringed upon D's residence.
A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below by comparison with records.