“If you enter through the normal way of entering, you cannot enter the building.”
The Supreme Court ruled that even if you stole items from a large store several times, you cannot be charged with trespassing if you enter through the normal method of entry.
The 2nd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Jo Jae-yeon) announced on the 3rd that it reversed the original sentence of six months in prison for A (43), who was charged with burglary and trespassing, and returned the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
In August last year, Mr. A was charged with stealing a total of 2.3 million won worth of items five times in a month at the same place, including stealing an earphone worth 300,000 won in a bag at a digital corner of a large bookstore in Seoul last year. received.
In the first and second trial, considering that A had a history of being punished several times for the same type of theft, and that he stole things again during the probation period, he sentenced them to six months in prison.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that even the building trespassing charge cannot be regarded as guilty.
In March of this year, the standard for trespassing was introduced when the Supreme Court changed the case law of the 1997 ‘grasping grasslands’.
At that time, even if the residents would not have consented to the entry if they had known the actual purpose of entry, at that time, the ‘actually peaceful state’ could be objectively and externally based on the type, use, and nature of the dwelling, as well as the access control and management method of outsiders. It established the jurisprudence that only infringing is a crime of trespassing.
At the same time, if you enter a store that is open to the general public with the consent of the business owner and use the normal method of entry, the ‘de facto state of calm’ is not violated, so it is not a residential invasion.
The Supreme Court said, “According to the evidence, it can be known that Mr. A entered the bookstore where the general public is allowed through the normal access method, and otherwise there is no reason to believe that the manager’s de facto state of calm has been violated.” Even if the entrance was for the purpose of a crime, it cannot be concluded that a crime of trespassing on a building is established.”
/yunhap news
ⓒ Hankyung.com, unauthorized reprinting and redistribution prohibited
