All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2020Do6085 Decided September 9, 2021 【Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Destruction and Damage, Etc. of Property); Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Intrusion into Residence); Violation of the Act on Punishment of Violence, Etc. (Joint Bodily Injury on Other)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Where one of the co-residents prohibited another co-resident from entering the communal living space without any legal grounds or any other justifiable reasons, but another co-resident entered the communal living space against such prohibition, whether another’s act may constitute the crime of intrusion into a residence (negative) and whether it is likewise applicable in a case where another co-resident spoiled the actual tranquility of a residence of the co-resident who prohibited another resident’s entry into the space by exerting some physical power such as destroying the locking device of the entrance door to enter the communal living space (affirmative) In such a case, where the entry into, and use of, the space by a non-resident who entered the communal living space with permission of the co-resident can be deemed a part of the ordinary act that the co-resident who permitted the nonresident’s entry into the space enters and uses the communal living space and the accompanying act, whether the non-resident’s act may constitute the crime of intrusion into a residence (negative) [2] In a case where Defendant A, who is one of the Defendants, came out of the apartment where he had led a communal life with Party B with some of his belongings because of marital discords with Party B, who is his wife; thereafter, Defendant A went to the apartment with Defendants C and D, who are his parents, and asked Party B to open the entrance door; but while Party B was out, Party E, who is the younger sister of Party B, locked the door with the chain lock installed on the entrance door, so Defendant A broke into the apartment after destroying the locking device jointly with Defendants C and D; and, as a result, Defendant A and two others were charged with the violation of the Violence Punishment Act (joint intrusion into residence), the case holding that such act of Defendant A, who continuously maintained the position as a co-resident of the apartment, cannot be seen to constitute the crime of intrusion into a residence, and such act, jointly committed by Defendants C and D, does not also correspond to the violation of the same Act (joint intrusion into residence) | |
