Criminal Specialist Attorney | Intrusion upon Habitation Charge Concluded With Non-Referral Through the Criminal Specialist Attorney's Assistance

Let us look at the level of punishment for the crime of intrusion upon habitation, addressed in Chapter 36, Article 319 of the Criminal Act.

The crime of intrusion upon habitation is a crime that breaks the peace of a habitation in which a person dwells. It is established when a person, without justifiable reason, intrudes upon another's habitation, a managed structure, a vessel, an aircraft, or an occupied room, or fails to comply when the owner has demanded that the person leave.

The criminal law attorney closely examined the elements of the crime in order to determine whether the client's allegation fell under the crime of intrusion upon habitation.

Under Article 319 of the Criminal Act, the scope of habitation is as follows.

A 'habitation' is a place where a person resides and which is used for sleeping and eating, and regardless of whether it is temporary or continuous, even a villa lived in for a certain period may be included.

According to recent precedent, the act of intruding, against the express or implied intent of the residents, into elevators, hallways, and the like inside multi-household single-family houses, multi-unit dwellings, row houses, and other multi-unit residences has also been held to constitute the crime of intrusion upon habitation.

Intrusion means a mode of conduct that breaks the de facto state of peace of a habitation by entering the habitation, where a part of the body enters against the intent of the resident or manager. For example, the crime of intrusion upon habitation may be established merely by an act such as pushing a hand or face through a window.

The criminal law attorney established a strategy to defend the client against punishment, making these elements of the offense the central issue.

The attorney specializing in criminal law cited the following precedent to argue that, as the client's alleged conduct lacked intent, the crime of intrusion upon habitation was not established.

The attorney specializing in criminal law strongly argued that the client lacked intent, based on the fact that even after seeing the victim, the client did not hurriedly leave the scene but apologized and then turned back out.

It was also argued that the client was heavily intoxicated at the time and, mistaken as a result, merely committed the offense in question.

The criminal specialist attorney explained that, at the time of this incident, the client had drunk about four bottles of beer and soju and was in a state of heavy intoxication.

Pointing to the fact that the client, upon seeing the victim shouting in the hospital room he had entered by mistake, explained that he had entered the wrong room, the attorney argued that the client had merely entered the victim's hospital room while heavily intoxicated, mistaking it for his wife's room, and that there had been no intent to commit intrusion upon habitation.

The attorney argued that the client's wife's hospital room and the room the client entered by mistake were so close as to be right next to each other, and that, being intoxicated, he had simply become confused and entered the wrong room, so that there had been no intent to commit intrusion upon habitation.