logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.05 2018노3249
건조물침입
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal is obvious that the defendant has entered a building against the will of the manager of the building, the court below found the defendant not guilty for the reason that the defendant did not clearly explain the reasons why the defendant entered the building, and it is improper to misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant, at around 12:20, intruded into G public relations centers on the second floor in the F parking lot in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant office”), and discovered that the office of this case, which the victim H manages, was opened on the second floor through the lower stairs of the first floor of the instant building, and found out that the office of this case, which was managed by the victim H, was opened, and intruded into another person’s structure by photographing the inner wall of the water.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of entering the instant office was de facto impairing the peace of the victim’s dwelling or intentionally invaded the Defendant’s structure.

The court judged that it was insufficient to recognize the defendant and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

(1) As evidence consistent with the facts charged, H’s investigative agency and the court of the court below made a statement, and as a whole, the statement is the purport that “if the goods of the office of this case are lost during the point of time, the defendant who was dissatisfied with the issue of payment of commission of the selling agency shall be deemed to have invaded to confirm the documents, etc. in the office of this case or to take the inside.

However, the above statement is merely an expression of the prosecution, and there is no objective evidence supporting the defendant's intrusion on the office of this case for the purpose of photographing the inner wall of the building against the victim's will.

arrow