Habitual Theft at Bookstore... Supreme Court Rules "Not Burglary of a Building"

1st and 2nd Trials Recognize Guilt for Theft and Building Trespass... Sentenced to 6 Months Imprisonment
Supreme Court: Entered Bookstore by Normal Means... Building Manager's Peace Not Disturbed

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that if someone enters a store through normal means and steals items, they can be punished for theft but cannot be charged with the crime of trespassing on a building.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Jae-yeon) announced on the 3rd that it overturned the previous ruling sentencing A (43) to six months in prison on charges of theft and trespassing, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

A was prosecuted for stealing items worth a total of 2.3 million won, including earphones valued at 300,000 won, from the digital corner of a large bookstore in Seoul over five occasions during one month last August.

The first and second trial courts sentenced A to six months in prison, considering A's prior convictions for similar theft offenses and the fact that the thefts occurred during a probation period. Both lower courts also found A guilty of trespassing on a building.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the charge of trespassing on a building could not be applied. This decision was based on the standard for judging the crime of residential intrusion established by the Supreme Court's full bench in March, which revised the 1997 Busan 'Chowon Bokjip' precedent. At that time, the full bench held that even if it was recognized that the entry would not have been permitted had the actual purpose of entry been known, if the entry was made without objectively and outwardly disrupting the factual peaceful state at the time of entry, it does not constitute an act of intrusion.

The court stated, "According to the evidence, it is clear that A entered the bookstore, where entry is allowed to the public, by normal means, and there is no other circumstance to consider that the factual peaceful state of the building manager was disturbed," adding, "Even if A's entry was for criminal purposes, it cannot be concluded that the crime of trespassing on a building is established."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.