All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do18272 Decided March 24, 2022 【Intrusion into a Dwelling of Another】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Meaning of “intrusion,” which constitutes an element of the crime of intrusion into a dwelling of another, and standards for determining whether a certain act constitutes intrusion Requirements for the perpetrator’s entry to constitute intrusion stipulated in the crime of intrusion into a dwelling of another in a case where: (a) the perpetrator’s entry into a dwelling of another with the authority of the owner was for the purpose of committing a crime, etc.; or (b) it is presumed that the resident would not have authorized the entry had the said resident known about the perpetrator’s actual purpose of entry Whether an entry to a restaurant, where public access is allowed, constitutes an intrusion as referred to in the crime of intrusion into a dwelling of another in a case where a person enters a restaurant with consent of the business owner (negative), and whether the case holds true even when the perpetrator entered the restaurant for criminal purposes or when it is presumed that the business owner would not have authorized the entry had he or she known the perpetrator’s actual purpose of entry (affirmative) [2] In the case where the Defendants were accused of entering the residence of Party A and Party B on the grounds that: (a) the Defendants conspired to treat Party C, an online journalist, to a meal at each respective restaurant run by Party A and Party B for the purpose of obtaining footage of Party C making an improper demand; and (b) the Defendants entered rooms of each restaurant to install a recording device, check whether the devices were functioning properly, and subsequently remove them, the case holding that the Defendants’ entry into the rooms of each restaurant through an ordinary method of entry with approval of the business owners of each respective restaurant does not constitute an intrusion stipulated in the crime of intrusion into a dwelling, and that even supposing the Defendants’ entry into the rooms of each respective restaurant was intended for installing recording devices to record the conversations and the scenes regarding Party C, another guest, or for checking whether the devices were functioning properly and removing the devices afterward, the Defendants cannot be considered to have committed the crime of intrusion into a residence on the sole basis of the above circumstance | |
