Defendant

Defendant

Dowards (prosecutions) and emigrations (public trial)

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 1618 Decided November 29, 2016

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The apartment house that the defendant damaged the entrance, etc. is owned by the non-indicted 1 corporation operated by the defendant as the representative director, so the defendant's act does not constitute self-help.

2. Determination

The self-help of the possessor prescribed in Article 209 of the Civil Code is the right to defend and defend the possession by the real force if the infringement of possession still holds on-site or tracking possibility.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, at around 12:30 on May 19, 2016, the execution officer had the defendant asserting a right of retention in the apartment of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), completed the delivery execution of the apartment on or around 14:20 on the same day, and Nonindicted 3, the head of the reconstruction project association of Nonindicted 2, the execution creditor, transferred the apartment from the execution officer and replaced the entrance locking system after the delivery of the apartment by the execution officer, and the defendant entered the apartment after setting the entrance door and damaging the locking system.

According to the above facts, since Non-Indicted 3 had already been replaced at the time when the defendant entered an apartment, and the possession of the apartment of the association was established by replacing the locking device of the entrance, the act of the defendant deprived of possession by the real force is not a self-help as provided in the Civil Act because it is difficult to view that there is the field or possibility of tracking the infringement of the right of possession. Furthermore, even in accordance with the materials submitted by the defendant, the act of the defendant, who was operated by the defendant, is not the owner of the apartment, but the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer. Thus, the act of damaging the entrance and locking the entrance and locking device without following the procedure as provided by the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung (Presiding Judge) Nalehn