logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노2941
주거침입
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a misunderstanding of facts, did not intrude upon a residence, because he was locked with the victim’s house, with the victim’s consent from the owner of the house, and went to the victim’s house.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (hereinafter “the penalty”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the defendant went to the victim’s house as of the day immediately preceding the instant facts charged, and the victim’s house was unknown, and the victim’s house was found again in the telecom, and the victim’s house was found again. However, the victim’s house did not have any explicit consent; ② the victim’s house owner, from the investigative agency to the court, consistently stated to the effect that “the victim’s house owner was unlocked to the defendant and did not go to the victim’s house,” and ③ the victim’s house owner consistently stated to the effect that “from the investigative agency to the court, there was no other fact that the victim was locked with the defendant,” and ③ the victim’s house from the investigative agency to the court, is consistent from the court to the date of the instant crime to the court

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that the Victim’s house would not return to the Victim’s house if the Victim’s house was removed, etc., the fact that the Victim’s house intrudes the Victim’s house without the Victim’s consent can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant seems to have been divinged after the instant crime and did not have significant damage; the victim was not punished by the Defendant; the victim was in a relationship with the victim and was paid with the victim as living expenses; and the amount paid to the victim was balanced with the case where the Defendant was punished at the same time as before and after the judgment of the lower court.

arrow