In a case where only a part of a person who conspired to intrude into another person's building by carrying a lethal weapon enters the building, whether it is determined on the basis of the offender who directly enters the building, which is the constituent element of the crime of special intrusion into residence as prescribed in Articles 3(1) and 2(1) and 319(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Article 94Do191, Oct. 11, 94)

Since the crime of special residence intrusion under Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act is established when one carries a lethal weapon or other dangerous object and intrudes into another's dwelling or a building, etc., in case where several persons conspired to intrude into another's building with a lethal weapon, and part of them, which part of them, reported outside of the building, and entered the building into the building, are deemed to have satisfied the elements of special residence intrusion, the issue of whether the crime of special residence intrusion can be deemed to have been carried with a lethal weapon shall be determined depending on whether the criminal can be deemed to have carried a lethal weapon based on the criminal who directly entered the building

Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yellow-il

Gwangju High Court Decision 94No423 delivered on July 1, 1994

1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime of special intrusion shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

2. The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the part of the Defendant’s ground of appeal regarding joining a criminal organization.

The protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by a judicial police officer who is dissatisfied with admissibility of evidence is clear that the defendant was not admitted as evidence in the court below and the court of first instance, and according to the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant's criminal facts can be fully acknowledged. Thus, the court below's judgment did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of evidence of the protocol of interrogation of a judicial police officer's suspect examination, or in the violation of the rules of evidence collection, or did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence collection. As to the case for which a sentence of six

2. We examine the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal and the public defender's grounds of appeal.

The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, which found guilty by the court of first instance, is found to be guilty. The defendant was ordered by Co-Defendant 1 to kill Co-Defendant 2 in the court below against the order of the court below to kill Co-Defendant 2 and die at night, together with Co-Defendant 3, 4, 5 and Nonindicted Co-Defendant 4, etc. (the fact that Co-Defendant 1 did not take it at the site) in the court below as Co-Defendant 2's office in the court below, and purchased three parts of the first instance and two parts of the first instance court's office in the second second second second instance, and then, Co-Defendant 4 and 5 nearby the office of Co-Defendant 2 in the court below's lower court's underground floor, and the defendant's act of intrusion into the defendant's building with a deadly weapon carried by Co-Defendant 2 in the second second second instance, and the court below's decision that the defendant's act of intrusion into the defendant's office did not constitute a joint intrusion into the defendant 2's office.

However, since the crime of special residence intrusion under Articles 3(1) and 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person carries a lethal weapon or other dangerous object and intrudes on another person's or a building, etc., if several persons conspired to intrude into another person's building by carrying a lethal weapon, and part of them, which part of them went into a building, are reported outside and only part of them come into a building, the elements of the crime of special residence intrusion should be determined depending on whether the offender can be deemed to have carried a lethal weapon on the basis of the offender who directly enters the building.

However, examining the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with the records, the vehicle which was kept with lethal weapons at the time was at a distance of about 30 through 50 meters from the above building invaded by the defendant, etc., and the remaining defendants in the vehicle were at the same time in comparison with the situation if the other defendants living in the vehicle and the defendant et al. were living in the vehicle, and the situation where the defendant et al. escaped is found, they can be acknowledged that they driven the vehicle without driving the vehicle. Thus, in a case where the defendant et al., who entered the above building was based on the defendant et al., who entered the above building, he cannot be deemed to have carried with the deadly weapons located in the vehicle located at a distance of about 30 through

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of special residence intrusion in the judgment does not contain an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to special residence intrusion, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime of intrusion on special residence is reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendant's appeal on the crime of joining an organization for which separate punishment is imposed as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)