▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the provisions of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, which combine 'house trespassing' and 'forced molestation', cannot be applied to a person who molested a woman on the first floor of a shopping mall.
The 2nd part of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Jo Jae-yeon) returned the case to the Seoul High Court, violating the lower court sentenced to 3 years and 8 months in prison by Mr. It was announced on the 29th that it was sent.
Previously, in April of last year, Mr. A was handed over to trial for illegally filming the legs of Miss B (then 17) on the first floor of a commercial building in Gyeonggi-do and forcibly harassing Ms. B on her way home.
A's crimes did not stop there.
That night, Ms. C (16) was molested on the first floor of a nearby shopping mall, and Ms. D (17) was molested on the 1st floor of another apartment in a similar way.
In addition, charges of illegally filming parts of the body and charges of obscenity were also applied.
In both the 1st and 2nd counts, A pleaded guilty and sentenced to 3 years and 8 months in prison.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the second trial, saying that it was difficult to see that Mr. A followed to the first floor of a commercial building as an act of breaking into a building.
According to the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, 'house trespassing' is a crime that combines 'house trespassing' (or trespassing on a building) and 'forced molestation'. .
This judgment is based on the residential trespassing principle made by the Supreme Court in March of this year when the Supreme Court changed the precedent for the so-called 'recovery of grasslands' that occurred in Busan on December 11, 1992.
According to the changed legal principle, 'house trespassing' (or building trespassing) is established when entering a building that compromises the de facto tranquility of the occupants or building managers.
For the same reason, the court said, "Just entering a shopping mall that is open to the public did not harm the peace, so it cannot be regarded as an invasion immediately."
However, the Supreme Court admitted that the crimes against B and D were still guilty of 'house-breaking forced molestation'.
He continued, "In this case, CCTV was installed in the common entrance of each apartment, which seems to be to control and monitor the access of outsiders. can,” he pointed out.
In response, a Supreme Court official added, "Whether or not it falls under 'intrusion' is evaluated differently depending on the purpose and nature of the dwelling, and the control and management method and condition of outsiders' access."