beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, was on the back of C lending C on the day of the instant case, but there was no attempt to open the victim’s house for the purpose of theft, and there was no attempt to open the victim’s house for the purpose of theft, and the entry into the back of the parking lot connected with no device at any time cannot be deemed as a residential intrusion.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be deemed to have commenced the commission of a criminal act called night residential intrusion larceny as stipulated in Article 330 of the Criminal Act at the stage of intrusion upon a residence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4417, Oct. 24, 2003). Furthermore, the commencement of the commission of a crime of intrusion upon a residence does not require part of the elements, i.e., the act of entering a structure or a structure which is either contrary to the will of the dwelling, manager, occupant, etc., or entering the structure that is managed, and it is sufficient to start the act that includes the realistic risk leading to the realization of the elements of the crime. Thus, the act of opening a window at night when the window of an apartment subject to intrusion was opened for the purpose of stealing the property of another person upon entering the apartment at night, and it can be deemed that the act of directly opening it was an objective act that infringes on the peace and peace of the dwelling.
The judgment of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2824, Sept. 14, 2006; 2010Do13245, Nov. 25, 2010) is examined, and the court below is determined.