Daejeon Attorney | Daejeon Criminal Attorney Obtains Non-Prosecution for Client Charged With Intrusion Upon Habitation and Other Offenses

The case originated a month earlier, when the client attempted to search the interior of a temple he owned in order to recover ownership of it.

Having obtained information that there would be important evidence inside the temple capable of proving his rights, the client sought to confirm this.

However, attempting the search without prior consultation with the temple's administrator or the monk, he was unsuccessful.

On the day of the incident, the client entered the temple again together with four co-suspects.

At the temple, they sought to recover the land contract the client claimed and documents capable of proving rights to the temple.

However, they encountered the temple's resident monk, and a verbal argument and minor conflict ensued.

In the end, the monk tried to block the client's entry, which led to a physical confrontation.

While the client and the co-suspects were grappling with the monk, they pushed him into a room, and two of the co-suspects held the monk back.

In the end, following the report by the resident monk, the client and the co-suspects were booked by the police on charges of intrusion upon habitation and unlawful confinement causing injury.

The temple was regarded as the monk's residence, so the charge of intrusion upon habitation was applied on the basis that the client and the co-suspects had entered the temple without authorization.

In addition, the monk claimed that he had suffered an abrasion to his right shoulder while being confined by the client, and a charge of unlawful confinement causing injury was also raised.

Intrusion upon habitation and unlawful confinement causing injury fall under Article 319 of the Criminal Act (intrusion upon habitation) and Article 281 of the Criminal Act (unlawful confinement causing injury), respectively.

First, the charge of intrusion upon habitation
Intrusion upon habitation is committed when a person enters another's residence without authorization. However, if it can be proven that there was a legitimate reason or no intent to intrude, the charge of intrusion upon habitation may be excused.

For example, if it can be proven that the defendant entered for the purpose of recovering ownership of the temple and therefore had no intent to intrude, the offense of intrusion upon habitation may not be constituted.

Second, unlawful confinement causing injury
Unlawful confinement is punishable on the premise of an intentional deprivation of liberty. However, if there was no intent to deprive someone of liberty, or if the injury occurred in an accidental situation, unlawful confinement is not constituted, and only the offense of bodily injury may apply. The client maintains that he had no intent to confine or injure the monk in their physical confrontation. Accordingly, if the injury occurred in an accidental situation, the charge of unlawful confinement causing injury may not be constituted.

Accordingly, the Daejeon criminal attorney denied the client's charges of intrusion upon habitation and unlawful confinement causing injury by arguing that the visit was for the legitimate purpose of recovering ownership and that there had been no intent to injure.

The client argued that, in the course of the confrontation with the monk, he had absolutely no intent to confine and then injure him.

The injury arose from an accidental physical confrontation, and the client did not intend to injure the victim; rather, it was the result of the situation unfolding unavoidably.

The place the client went to was the temple's administrative office.

That location is where the temple's affairs are handled and is a place anyone is permitted to enter.

Accordingly, it is not regarded as a residence, and the client visited the location for the legitimate purpose of recovering ownership.

On this basis, the attorney argued that the client's conduct does not amount to intrusion upon habitation.