logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.16 2020노461
주거침입등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, even if the Defendant’s act of destroying an invasion does not constitute a obstruction of the exercise of rights, and the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the obstruction of another’s exercise of rights among the facts charged in the instant case, even if the facts charged in the lower judgment were guilty, the sentence (4 million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to find facts as to residential intrusion, even if the defendant was found to have entered the victim's residence without the victim's explicit or implied consent, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of residential intrusion among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The above punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of detailed reasoning in the part of the Judgment on the Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the above reasoning of the judgment of the court below closely, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as argued by the defendant. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, against the victim’s will.

arrow