beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.10.17 2019노301

특수강도

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. Since the Defendant, as a soldier or reserve force of the United States of America, is currently in the position of war ex officio, the Republic of Korea has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the Agreement under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Agreement”), and the Republic of Korea has no jurisdiction over this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty on the instant case as having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea.

B. The lower court’s determination to exclude a participatory trial in spite of the Defendant’s and counsel’s request to exclude a participatory trial, and found the Defendant guilty by proceeding the instant case in ordinary trial proceedings, constitutes a serious infringement on the Defendant’s right to receive a participatory trial under the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter “National Participatory Trial Act”).

C. The CCTV images reproduced by the court below on the second trial date, which were submitted by the prosecutor of facts against the rules of evidence and the mistake of facts, cannot be used as evidence, and the statements of the witness present at the court below are merely false arguments.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of these evidences is erroneous in the facts against the rules of evidence.

In the absence of intention, the Defendant did not have the robbery intention at the time of the instant crime, and only had the intention of larceny. Thus, apart from whether the Defendant’s act constitutes larceny, a special robbery is not committed against the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the violation of the jurisdiction of jurisdiction 1) the main sentence of Article 1 (1) (a) of the Agreement of this case (the first sentence is the United States.