logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.29 2019노763
주거침입
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) M&A (hereinafter “instant residence”) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant residence”)

(2) As the Defendant’s ownership of the Defendant who was under title trust in the future of the victim, entry into the said residence does not constitute a residential intrusion. Moreover, the Defendant was found to have engaged in a memorial person to the head of a mother who resides with the victim in the above residence and to transfer his father’s death awareness. Therefore, there was no intention of entering the residence. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In other words, the legal interest of the crime of intrusion of residence is de facto peace and peace in the residence of each person residing in the pertinent residence, and whether the resident has the legal authority to reside in the residence, etc. does not depend upon the establishment of the crime. The defendant married with the victim around 1992, but was living separately after divorce with the victim by the decision of the Gwangju Family Court in around 2012. The victim and the mother of the victim were living in the instant residence before and after the above divorce. The victim maintained ownership until now since acquiring the ownership of the instant residence in around 202, and the division of property between the defendant and the victim remains at issue, and the defendant's property was argued as the property owned by the defendant under title trust with the victim, but the defendant did not submit any materials verifying this.

arrow