Unauthorized Intrusion upon Habitation | Defending the Intrusion Charge and Concluding With Suspension of Indictment

The client stated that, having broken up with the victim a short while later, he had visited her home to say a final goodbye.

He stated that, seeing from outside that the lights inside the home were on but there being no sign of anyone even after he rang the doorbell, he hurriedly opened the door and went in out of concern that an emergency might have occurred.

However, the victim expressed great displeasure at the client's act of intrusion upon habitation and reported it to the police.

The client claimed that he had acted out of a desire to help the victim, but the victim regarded it as an intrusion, stating that the client had entered her home without permission, and reported it to the police.

Recalling the circumstances at the time, the client felt deeply wronged.

He asserted that he had urgently opened the door and entered to check on the complainant's safety, but the complainant regarded the client's conduct as offensive and took legal action.

In the end, after investigating the case, the police determined that there was a basis for the charge and referred the client to the prosecution.

🔗Intrusion upon habitation is the act of entering another person's residence without that person's consent or trespassing on a place where that person legitimately resides.

Through this, it had to be determined whether the client's conduct constituted intrusion upon habitation.

In particular, according to Supreme Court Judgment 2020Do12630, the crime of intrusion upon habitation is not determined merely by whether the resident consented, but rather whether the 'de facto peace of the residence' was infringed has become a primary criterion for the determination.

In other words, it can be seen that, even if there was outward entry, the determination focuses on whether the psychological stability and peace that the victim feels in the living space were substantially infringed.

Accordingly, if the client's conduct were recognized as intrusion upon habitation, he could face imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 5 million won, and, in particular, considering that the victim strongly demanded severe punishment, the possibility of an actual custodial sentence could not be ruled out.

The client deeply reflects on his conduct and, after the incident occurred, sincerely conveyed an apology to the victim.

In particular, the client deeply regrets having unlawfully entered the home out of concern for the condition of his ex-girlfriend.

He expressed that he acknowledges having misjudged the situation in a state of heightened emotion, and is seriously reflecting on the fact that the victim may have felt discomfort.

The client emphasized that they had not intentionally attempted to commit intrusion upon habitation.

The client explained that the reason they opened the door and entered was simply concern for the victim's condition, and that, thinking a serious situation might arise, they urgently opened the door and entered.

The client argued that, because the act prioritized the victim's safety above all in the circumstances at the time, it was not an intentional intrusion.

Since the incident, the client has been making efforts to maintain mental stability and to support self-reflection in order to prevent reoffending.

In particular, the client completed a law-abiding awareness education program and once again felt a renewed sense of caution regarding criminal conduct and reflected on it.