logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.08 2016고정3017
주거침입
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who purchased the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment and 1102 Dong 102 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

On August 8, 2016, around 11:00, the Defendant brought an objection to the issue of the long-term repair appropriation fund by affixing the internal photo of the said residence, and entered the said house through the present door opened to raise an objection to the issue of the long-term repair appropriation fund, and intrudes on the residence of the victim.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the defendant entered the apartment of this case around 11:00 on August 8, 2016 and entered the apartment of this case, and one copy of the damaged photograph is recognized.

However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the issue of the long-term repair allowance against the victim who affixed the internal photograph of the apartment of this case.

Rather, according to the above evidence, the Defendant purchased the instant apartment from G on behalf of her mother on August 8, 2016 after purchasing the instant apartment on behalf of her mother, and talked about the seller G, the victim D, I, and I, who was the lessee of the instant apartment, and the victim D, I, and I, who was the lessee of the instant apartment, to settle the balance and management expenses, etc. However, F, who did not appear to appear to be the victim, was coming to the Defendant, leading to the instant apartment. At the time of the Defendant’s signing the instant apartment, the instant apartment was being cleaned and cleaned. At the time of the Defendant’s signing the instant apartment, the Defendant sought the understanding of the father, and tried to request the father to leave the instant apartment, and confirmed that there was no possibility of doing so.

arrow