logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.09.04 2013노306
주거침입등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) As to residential intrusion, the retaining wall construction indicated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) As to the damage of property (1,69,00 won) as stated in this part of the facts charged, the amount of damage (1,69,000 won) was calculated excessively.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of mistake of facts, and the crime of intrusion of residence is an intentional crime, but it can be established not only with conclusive intention but also with dolusent intention. The negligence as a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of a crime is declared uncertain and it is acceptable as it is declared as an uncertain element of the constituent element of the crime. In order to have dolusent intent, there is a perception of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, as well as an internal intent which permits the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether the actor permits the possibility of occurrence of a crime or not must be determined based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside, rather than depending on the statement of the offender, by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed, the psychological state from the standpoint of the offender must be ratified.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant was the owner of the instant construction project, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, namely, the Defendant was the owner of the instant construction project; the victim consistently employed the Defendant’s husband without permission around May 1, 2012, which is the day immediately before the date of each of the instant crimes.

arrow