logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.10.20 2017고정235
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)등
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. Defendants A, B, and C in the facts charged are children of G who died of a traffic accident on June 18, 2016, and Defendant D is the husband of Defendant B, and the victim H is a person in a de facto marital relationship with G.

A. On July 16, 2016, Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) opened the entrance locked without the victim’s permission and forced the repair hole to enter the entrance locked in front of the victim’s house No. 1, 1, and 310, and violated the victim’s residence jointly, on the ground that the father’s relics were arranged.

B. Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage of joint property, etc.) held the entrance door number height installed by the victim in the same date and at the same place as the above A, and forced him/her to repair the key, and jointly damaged the entrance number height by having the victim’s unexploded herb, kimchi, and various food materials, etc. in the market price, which was located in the air condition conditioning the power source location, occupy the market price of the victim, and jointly damaged the entrance number height of KRW 200,000.

(c)

The ththie Defendants conspired to commit theft with the market influorous property in the same time, at the same place as the above A., and at the same time, at the same place as the victim’s possession, 3 bottles, Myeongdogs, and 2 joints of cremation land, etc.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, even if the instant house were resided together with G and H, and each of the property indicated in the facts charged was owned by H, the evidence alone, which was presented by the prosecutor, proves to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt that the Defendants had been aware of the fact that the instant house was jointly residential with G and H, and that each of the property indicated in the facts charged was owned by H.

It is difficult to see it.

① The instant housing is the father or the principal of the Defendants, G.

arrow