(a) The exclusion of illegal occupancy and the nature of the crime of intrusion upon residence through unfair procedures;

(b) the meaning of “residential or other structure” and “infence” in the crime of intrusion upon residence;

(c) The case holding that an act of entering the border, such as a new site for taking office, constitutes an offense of intrusion upon residence;

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto residential peace and protection of the legal interest, the establishment of a crime does not depend on whether a resident or a guard has the legal authority to reside in or accept a building, etc., and on the other hand, even if a person loses his legal authority after lawful dwelling or commencement of water supply and illegal possession under private law, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established if the person having the right intrudes upon the residence or structure without following due procedure to exclude it.

B. In the crime of intrusion upon residence, a residence or structure does not simply refer to a house, but includes a summary of the house. Intrusion upon residence is sufficient to enter the house against the will of the resident or the guard and does not require to receive any resistance. In general, even in an open place, the manager may prohibit or restrict the entry when necessary, so if the house or structure is entered the premises of the house unreasonable against the intention of prohibition or restriction of entry, the crime of intrusion upon residence constitutes the crime of intrusion.

C. In light of the fact that approximately 270 winners and believers are aware that they are well-known, and they are still keeping the temple border, if the defendant was able to see approximately 37 general winners of the temple, and entered the temple border by going beyond the rear door of the temple before the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the past, or by walking the steel net installed on the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the ring of the past, the act by the defendant goes beyond the limit of his taking office through the examination process in accordance with the Sejong Law,

Article 319 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Im-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 81No662 delivered on April 29, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants' defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first point (in the case of an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to a crime of intrusion upon residence against the defendant), the first point is

The crime of intrusion upon residence is established when a person's residence or a structure, etc. which intrudes upon or demands the residence or the structure of a person without a justifiable reason and does not leave the place. The legal interest is the peace of the residence. Thus, the issue of whether the resident or the person has the legal legitimate authority to reside or accommodate the building, etc. does not depend upon the establishment of the crime. On the other hand, even if the person loses his legal authority after lawful dwelling or the acceptance of a bribe and illegal possession is carried out under the private law, it shall be deemed that he is under his possession unless he releases possession through legitimate procedures. Even in this case, the peace of the residence shall be protected. Thus, even in a case where the right holder intrudes on the residence or the structure without due procedure to avoid the illegality, the crime of intrusion upon residence shall be established.

In addition, in the crime of intrusion upon residence, the residence or structure does not simply refer to the house, but includes the summary thereof, and the intrusion does not require any resistance against the will of the resident or the guard, and it does not require any resistance. In general, when it is necessary to establish an open place, the manager may prohibit or restrict the entry. Thus, if the house or structure is carried into the premises of the house unreasonable against the intention of prohibition or restriction of entry, the crime of intrusion upon residence should be established.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) there was a situation where approximately 270 persons gather to protect the police in light of the manner of intrusion by the defendants in light of the above monthly company; and (b) the defendants knew of such situation, despite the regulations of the chief of the Cho Jong-gun and the chief of the bureau, determined about 37 persons who embling the defendants 1, in addition to the examination team, and determined that there were about 37 persons who embling the defendant 1, in addition to the examination team of the chief of the bureau, etc., they did not go beyond the back of the monthly company set up before the new date, or walking the steel net installed in the due door, and passed through the due door, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of intrusion by such defendants, etc., which points out the limit of taking office through the procedure of the paper law, and there is no violation of the law as to the peace of the residential occupation.

2. As to the second point (a violation of the rules of evidence in the part of the crime of injury against Defendant 2);

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the crime of injury (violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) to Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the recognition of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no illegality of misconception of the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)