(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.10.17 2018고정104

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.10.17 2018고정104

주거침입

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a space between the victim C's wife D and mountain conference with the victim's knowledge.

1. On September 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 23:30, the Victim C’s house located in E apartment 102 Dong 1412, and the victim had a business trip as a business trip obtained the consent of the said D, and intruded into the victim’s house through the front door.

2. On September 16, 2017, at around 23:30, the Defendant: (a) obtained the victim C’s consent to the said D, which was located in the same place as paragraph (1) from the victim C, with five mountain peds; and (b) went into the said house through the entrance door, and intruded on the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the fact that he/she enters the victim's office is stated in its reasoning);

1. The defendant asserts that the police statement protocol against C (the defendant is between the victim's house upon D's request and is not between the victim's house and the victim's house for the purpose of communication or misconduct).

In light of the evidence presented in this case, it is not confirmed whether the defendant was duplicating the victim's residence for the purpose of adultery.

However, if the consent of one person is directly or indirectly against the will of another resident, his access to the residence is against the will of the other resident, and therefore, it would be prejudicial to the peace of the residence, that is, the control of the residence, and the peace of the management. Thus, the crime of intrusion into the residence is established. Even if one of the visitors is absent, the control relation of the residence is recognized as externally existing (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do685, Jun. 26, 1984). This legal principle does not necessarily apply only to the entry into the residence for the purpose of adultery.

In this regard, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above, namely, when the defendant does not have a victim, the defendant visited the victim's house at the time of his own home.

참조판례

-대법원 1984. 6. 26. 선고 83도685 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.05.25 2017노795

-춘천지방법원 2017.08.16 2017고단15

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.06.13 2013고정36

-울산지방법원 2021.02.03 2020고정529

-울산지방법원 2013.11.21 2013고단2991