logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.10 2017고정1172
주거침입
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around January 12, 2017, the Defendant found at the residence of the victim D(57) of the victim D(57) of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Incheon, about 18:40 on January 12, 2017, in order to resisting the work that had been parked with the victim due to a parking problem, and walked with the front door, and opened a door to the front door to the front door, and thereby, the Defendant harming the peace of the victim’s residence by opening the door to the front door to the front door of the front door.

2. We examine whether the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

The victim was present as a witness, and the victim was also present at the place where the defendant was unsatisfy in his house.

However, the police stated that the young fighting unit "I am a door by opening it even, and the young fighting unit is the same as the young fighting unit, so I am up the door again by force, and am up, I am up as the door, and reported it to the police.

(1) The Defendant attempted to open and enter a compulsory door, but the date is the same as the date of a large fighting, and by force, left the door by putting the door.

“The Defendant stated that it was, together with the Defendant, did not go before the Victim’s home.

E/F that the defendant did not enter the victim's entrance.

The above victim's testimony is difficult to believe, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant invadeds upon the victim's residence by entering the victim's house, in light of the fact that the defendant did not enter the victim's house, even if considering the video recorded in the situation at the time, the defendant did not enter the victim's house, and rather, it is acknowledged that the defendant did not enter the defendant's house although the victim's wife was attempted to enter the house.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow