logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.08 2017노2666
주거침입
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by failing to enter the residence of the victims and by failing to have an intention to intrude into the residence of the victims, but the defendant conspiredd with the co-defendant A of the court below to intrude

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion.” In addition, the lower court’s determination in detail compared with the records, and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the appellate court, i.e., the Defendant was receiving a monthly salary of 2 million won by taking charge of receiving the work as an employee of the KIMO who entered into a contract with the redevelopment and rearrangement project association at the investigative agency, and stated that the victims’ continued refusal of appraisal after the redevelopment decision and interfere with the work of the said association, and thus, the Defendant did not appear to have been present at the court below’s direction to accept the instant appraisal and assessment as a witness of the victims under the name of the said association (Evidence No. 112, 116), and ② the Defendant was using the general management support headquarters/director, etc. on the date.

arrow