[Pick] A 30-year-old who entered the house to have sex with a minor same-sex… Daebeop “It’s not a house invasion”


The Supreme Court has ruled that a man charged with trespassing after entering a home where his parents are absent for the purpose of having sex with a same-sex minor cannot be punished.

Today (20th), the 2nd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Judge Cheon Dae-yeop) overturned the original judgment sentenced to 1 million won in fine in the appeal of a man in his 30s, who was charged with house trespassing, and returned the case to the Suwon District Court.

In 2018, Mr. A entered the house of a minor B, whom he knew through SNS, for the purpose of having sex.

B’s father, who later found out about this, sued A for trespassing, saying that A had trespassed into his house.

In the trial in 2019, Mr. A entered the house through the door with the consent of group B, and argued that the act with group B was also not illegal.

The courts of the first and second trial hearing this case did not accept Mr. A’s claim and sentenced him to a fine of 1 million won.

Even if group B approved Mr. A’s entry, it was determined that the crime was established because the result of harming the peace of the residence occurred without the express or presumptive consent of the father, who is a co-resident. A was dissatisfied with this and appealed.

▲ Supreme Court’s all-inclusive decision on residential trespassing case (2021. 9. 9.)

However, the situation changed when the Supreme Court’s all-inclusive decision in September changed the case for the first time in 37 years for trespassing.

This is because the Supreme Court at the time opened a consensus on the case of a man who was in a relationship with his wife who had cheated on her at the house of her lover and changed the case law on the crime of trespassing.

At that time, the Supreme Court broke the existing precedent made in 1983 and upheld the innocence, stating that if an outsider entered the dwelling by the usual way of entering the dwelling with the realistic consent of the resident in the absence of some of the co-residents, he could not be punished for trespassing. I did.

The case of Mr. A was also affected by the changed precedent. The Supreme Court said, “Mr A entered the residence using the usual method of entry and exit. There is no evidence that Mr. A entered the residence to harm the calm state of the father of group B,” the Supreme Court said. It cannot be regarded as trespassing solely on the subjective grounds that it is against the law.”

This is a ‘news pick’.

(Photo = Korea Supreme Court YouTube capture)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *