Establishment of the crime of intrusion upon residents' will and residence.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, whether the resident or manager has the authority to reside in or manage the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime. Even if a person is permitted to enter the building in a usual manner due to the relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence goes against the explicit or presumed intent of the resident or manager, then the crime of intrusion upon residence is established, and if the act of entering the house is not normal access through the entrance, unless there are special circumstances, it should be viewed that the method itself goes against the above intent.

Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 delivered on April 24, 1984 (Gong1984,944) 85Do122 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Gong1985,660) 90Do173 delivered on March 13, 1990 (Gong190,922)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 94No2177 delivered on November 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the measures that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case Nos. 1 through 6 and 8 are justifiable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the two indictments were not to be put at a disadvantage or difficulty in exercising the Defendant’s right of defense, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the abuse of the right of defense. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

3. Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto peace and protection of legal interest, the issue of whether a resident or manager has the right to reside in or manage a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime (Supreme Court Decision 69Do2089 delivered on December 23, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 85Do122 delivered on March 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 delivered on April 24, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 delivered on April 24, 198), and even if a person is permitted to enter the building due to his relationship with the resident or manager, if the act of entering the residence is committed against the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 428Do25 delivered on December 23, 195), and the act of intrusion against the intent of the defendant does not constitute the crime of intrusion upon residence by itself, barring any special circumstance.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)