logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.05.27 2014노1996
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) although the Defendant had exercised a lien on the original construction site of this case, the victim depriveded the construction site of this case without legitimate title, and the Defendant entered the construction site of this case to recover possession of the building of this case, so the Defendant does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon the structure.

(2) Even if a crime of intrusion on a structure is established, the defendant trusted the entry of relevant judgments, etc. and entered the construction site of this case in order to recover the right of retention unfairly deprived of his/her right of retention. Thus, it constitutes a case where the defendant misleads the defendant that his/her act was not a crime and has justifiable grounds for

2. The Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said assertion on the following grounds: “Judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and the above argument by the defendant is difficult to accept.

① It is reasonable to see that the victim had lawfully controlled or managed the instant site in appearance at least. Even if the victim could be deemed to have arisen from unfairly depriveding the Defendant’s right to possess the said site, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s intrusion into the instant site by means of destroying the entrance, such as the statement of facts constituting the crime, in order to recover the right to possess the said site by himself/herself without going through lawful procedures for restoring the right to possess the said site.

② Although the court, which initially deprived of Defendant’s possession, was subject to criminal punishment, it is recognized that the Defendant has the right to intrude into the instant building managed by the victim.

arrow