beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that each of the facts charged in each of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant did not belong to the object of the crime of residential intrusion because it is difficult to view that the place to which the Defendant entered was restricted is objectively revealed, and the public performance and obscenity is not recognized in that the Defendant 1 did obscene acts in a narrow space between the building and the building at the 1st page without human being, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of all of the facts charged in this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the public performance and obscenity.
(2) The lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 5 million on the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant is against the principle of unreasonable sentencing and the agreement with the victim, etc.
B. In light of the fact that there are three times the same criminal records against the prosecutor, and that the crime of this case was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to obscenity, etc., and recidivism during the suspended sentence, the sentence of the court below on the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the crime of intrusion upon a residence, if the crime of intrusion upon a residence was committed as the protected legal interest of the law and protection of the law and protection of the law, so that the resident can harm the peace of the residence which he enjoy, it shall be deemed that the crime meets the elements of crime. In the crime of intrusion upon a residence, the crime of intrusion upon a residence refers not only to the house itself but also to the above summary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1092, Apr. 24, 2001). It is clearly revealed that the manager, as the surrounding land adjacent to the building to become the above summary, was provided for the use of the building by installing a door and fence on the outside and boundary of the building.
Supreme Court Decision 204.6.0