beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the entry into a house is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the damage of property, the Defendant’s willful negligence on the fact that the digital locking device of this case is owned by another person is recognized.
B. As to the entry into a residential intrusion, it cannot be deemed that the boiler was an urgent situation where the boiler was likely to do so, and it cannot be said that the act of entering a residential intrusion conducted without going through lawful procedures, such as an order to deliver real estate, is a legitimate act.
2. The summary of the facts charged C is that the defendant was awarded a successful bid of 3 b01, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City E-Ba, where the victim D (n, 59 years of age) leased and live, and the defendant is C’s living together.
At around 17:00 on December 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) replaced the key stuff of the entrance No. 201 above from a digital locking device owned by the victim to a basic type auxiliary locking device; (b) damaged the market value; (c) damaged it at the same time and place as above; and (d) invaded upon the victim’s residence.
3. The judgment of the court below
A. According to the statement, investigation report, etc. of D on the damage of property, F, a wife of D, leased the above No. 201 from G, the former owner of the above No. 201 on April 23, 2009, and D, around that time, purchased the above digital locking device and installed it at the entrance of the above No. 201. On December 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was found to have removed the above digital locking device from the entrance of the above No. 201 and installed the basic locking device to bring the key to the above digital locking device; (b) the above digital locking device can be easily separated without damage of the entrance; (c) the separation of it does not require excessive cost; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the successful bidder of the above No. 201 had independent economic utility from the entrance, and thus, (c) the Defendant did not own the device temporarily, thereby damaging its digital locking the device.