(a) The nature of intrusion upon a structure and intrusion upon a house by a person who is not entitled to possess;

(b) In case where the owner enters the building possessed by the successful bidder on the basis of execution of delivery by the decision of invalid successful bid permission, the nature of the crime of intrusion upon residence;

A. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto established as a legal interest protected by the law, the issue of whether a resident or a guard has a right to live in a building or a structure does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if possession is carried out by a person who has no right to possess it, peace of the residence must be protected. Thus, in realizing that right, if a right holder intrudes upon the residence or structure without following the procedure stipulated by the Act, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established

B. If the building of this case was sold at auction en bloc with the site and building which became the object of the right to collateral security, even if the decision of approval of the successful bid on the building of this case is null and void automatically, as long as the possession of the building of this case was transferred to the successful bidder, the defendant, the owner of the building of this case, enters the building of this case against the execution of invalid extradition, even if the defendant, who was the owner of the building of this case, enters the building

Article 319 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 82No330 delivered on March 30, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below held that the non-indicted Y, the mortgagee of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 5's 19's 19's 5's 19's 7's 5's 19's 5's 19's 19's 5's 5's 372-22 (39's 337's 49's 337's 49's 187's 27's 187's 37's 187's 182's 37's 190's 190's 190's 190's 20's 190's 10's 10's 1.

However, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established when a person's residence or a building is invaded or demanded without any justifiable reason and does not leave the house or a building which is guarded by another person's residence or guarded by a person, and the peace of his residence is protected. Thus, the issue of whether a resident or a person who has a right to live or to accommodate a building does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it is possessed, the peace of his residence should be protected. Thus, in realizing his right, if a person has intruded on his residence or a building without following the procedure prescribed by law, the crime of intrusion is established. Therefore, even if the decision of permission of a successful bid is null and void at the time of the original adjudication, as long as the possession of the building of this case was transferred to the above gambling route, the act of the defendant without permission constitutes the crime of intrusion upon residence, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of intrusion upon residence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)