beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant is the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building 101 et al. (101).
Among the owners of 1/2 shares, 101 shares were possessed jointly with the victim D. However, the victim's mother-friendly E, who intends to properly enter the right room among 101, is an unconditioned entry of the Defendant, thereby obstructing entry and leaving the entrance door inevitably.
Therefore, although the defendant's act was a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and
2. Determination
A. Since the relevant legal doctrine and the legal interest protected by the law is the peace of a de facto residence, if a building managed by a person enters a building against the explicit or implied intent of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon a building is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9963, May 24, 2012). Even if a building is occupied by a person without the right to possess, the peace of the residence must be protected. Thus, even if a right holder intrudes on a building by means of self-help as an enforcement of the right, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7044 Decided March 15, 2007. Meanwhile, "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, the illegality of the act is excluded should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, first, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, third, the balance between the benefit of protection and the benefit of infringement, fourth, the above act is urgent.