The intent of the crime of intrusion and occupation;

6.25A house with a view to avoiding column during the incident is not the possessor of the sea-style house, but the possessor of the sea-style house has never renounced his possession and, in fact, has been temporarily relieved of possession, not only has the intention of possession but also has to remain, and even if the military police or the administrative agency concerned has to reduce the number and number of houses to the number and number of houses, it cannot be said that the vehicle has no choice but to be a structure where the vehicle has not been recovered, even if it has to be restored to the d

Article 319 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul District Court and Seoul High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant 1’s above Defendant 2 is punished by a fine of 10,000 20,000 ; and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 shall be punished by a fine of 10,000 ;

If the accused, etc. is unable to pay a fine in full, the accused, etc. shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 200 money into one day.

Defendant 5: Innocence

The grounds of appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office are that the facts charged with this case's house and the facts charged are stated in this case's indictment, and that the judgment below is for the reasons, and that the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, etc. do not have the title to the house of 6.25 marbly, they occupied the house without permission after September 4, 286, and they did not necessarily constitute a so-called "non-indicted 1" which is the lessee's house's non-indicted 6 marbly owned and purchased the house's house under the law of 19 marbly, and that it is not necessary to establish the so-called "non-indicted 2" house's house's non-indicted 6 marbly occupied and purchased the house without permission, and therefore, it is not necessary to establish the so-called "non-indicted 319 marbly occupied" house under the law of 19 marbly occupied.

However, according to Article 12 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, in a case where one of the members of the same family owns a house within 20 days from the center of the house or the site to be purchased, a person belonging to the same family cannot purchase the house or the site to which he belongs, and therefore, he/she cannot purchase the house or the site to which he/she belongs. However, the owner of the house cannot purchase the house or the site to which he/she belongs. However, according to the records, it is interpreted that there is no restriction on the owner of the house or the site to which he/she belongs.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)