[1] In a case where a right holder intrudes on a structure without following the legal procedure to enforce his/her right, whether the crime of intrusion upon a house is established (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a person who had been convicted of an unauthorized intrusion on another person's house continues to reside in the relevant house without leaving the house after the judgment became final and conclusive, the case holding that an act after the judgment became final and conclusive constitutes a separate offense of intrusion

[1] Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if the occupation of the person without the right to possess is the possession of the building, the peace of the dwelling must be protected. Thus, if the right holder intrudes upon the building without following the procedure stipulated by the Act in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

[2] In a case where a person who had been convicted of an unauthorized intrusion on another person's house continues to reside in the relevant house without leaving the house after the judgment became final and conclusive, the case holding that the act after the judgment became final and conclusive constitutes a separate crime of intrusion upon residence

[1] Article 319 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 319 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983, 677) Supreme Court Decision 87Do1760 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong1988, 124) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3137 Delivered on July 27, 2007

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Won-in

Suwon District Court Decision 2007No260 decided Dec. 7, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the issue of whether a person who has a residence or a guard has a right to live in a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it is possessed, the peace of residence should be protected. Thus, if a right holder intrudes on a building, etc. without following the procedure prescribed by the Act, the crime of intrusion upon residence should be established (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 2006Do3137, Jul. 27, 2007, etc.).

Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, the court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged on May 12, 2006, since the defendant had been convicted of unauthorized intrusion on the house of this case on May 12, 2006 and did not leave the house of this case and continued to reside in the house of this case, and even after the judgment became final and conclusive, the defendant's act of entering the house of this case and his illegal state continue to exist. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the circumstances of the instant case acknowledged by the record, the social status and career of the Defendant, and the legal relationship with the victim, etc., it cannot be said that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act of the Defendant in the instant case. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)