(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.09.04 2013노1284 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.09.04 2013노1284

상해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) was found not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intrusion) despite the fact that the defendant continued to enter the victim's house at short intervals and the number of the crimes committed by the defendant, even though the defendant was found to have habitually invaded upon the victim's residence. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habitual nature, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of this part of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was that the Defendant injured the victim during a divorce lawsuit with the victim C and was ordered from November 2, 2012 to December 31, 2012 to prohibit access to the victim’s residence, but the Defendant neglected this order and infringed on the victim’s residence five times from around November 30, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, at around November 13:25, 2012, D apartment 303, a 1st floor of the Gongju-si, where the victim lives in front of the same 201 entrance, and the victim was living in front of the same 201 entrance, and the victim did not open the door, and the Defendant invadedd the victim’s residence five times from around that time to around January 15, 2013, as shown in the annexed list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually intrudes on the victim's residence.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual residence intrusion) on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the above crime was committed by the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not have a criminal record of intrusion upon residence; and (b) the Defendant’s crime of intrusion upon residence was committed in the process of jointly ruling with the victim or seeking the victim’s wife; and (c) there was no other evidence to acknowledge habituality; and (d)

3. The judgment of this Court

(a) Habituality of a crime means any brush or criminal tendency;

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2013.9.4.선고 2013노1284 판결

-대구고등법원 2015.12.10 2015노535

-대구지방법원 2013.04.11 2013고단808

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.07.10 2014고합69

-인천지방법원 2014.06.25 2014고합251