logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.19 2015고정781
주거침입등
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of search for residence is acquitted.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the victim D in Nam-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant apartment”) about 105 dong 1507 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and had the Defendant live inside and outside of the F.

1. On December 13, 2014, around 15:00 on December 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) laid the director in the apartment of this case on November 28, 2014; (b) laid down the key repair hole on the ground that the term of the apartment contract remains and the settlement of the deposit money, etc. has not been completed; and (c) destroyed the apartment entrance knife equivalent to KRW 40,000 in the market price owned by the victim; and (d) changed the password of the apartment entrance number of the apartment of KRW 150,00 in the market price.

2. The Defendant entered the apartment house of this case into the victim’s dwelling room on the same date and place as that of paragraph (1) for the same reason as that of paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in light of the fact that the term of the lease contract remains at the time of the instant crime and the F still occupies the instant apartment, the Defendant was aware that he/she entered the instant apartment as a legitimate exercise of the lessee’s legitimate right, and that he/she did not have an intention to damage the property and to intrude into the residence.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest protected by the law, the issue of whether a resident or a guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime, and even if a person has no right to possess it, the peace of the residence should be protected. Thus, even if a right holder intrudes on the building as a means of self-help as an enforcement of the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

Supreme Court Decision 85Do122 delivered on March 26, 1985

arrow