beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not intend to harm the peace of the victim’s residence, and did not commit any act detrimental to the peace of residence.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (one million won in penalty) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The crime of intrusion upon a residence is a legal interest that protects the peace of the residence, and if a resident committed a crime to the extent that it may harm the peace of the residence which he enjoy, it shall be deemed that the elements for the composition of the crime are satisfied (Supreme Court Decision 94Do2561 delivered on September 15, 1995). Meanwhile, in the crime of intrusion upon a residence, the crime of intrusion upon a residence does not merely refer to the house itself, but includes the above summary, such as the number of houses.
Therefore, an elevator used for public use in multi-family housing, such as a multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, apartment house, etc., and an elevator, stairs, and corridor are necessarily annexed to each household or household used for residential purpose, and are expected to be supervised and managed by the residents in their daily lives and to protect de facto residential peace. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an elevator inside multi-family housing, such as multi-household house, multi-household house, apartment house, apartment house, etc., and an elevator, common stairs, and corridor constitute a "human’s residence", which is an object of a residential intrusion, barring any special circumstance, and an intrusion against the residents’ explicit and implied intent constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do435, Sept. 10, 200). (b) In light of these legal principles, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance court and the first instance court to prevent unauthorized access to the apartment: