1. The crime of robbery under Article 337 of the Criminal Act is established when a robbery inflicts an injury on an opportunity to commit robbery. Thus, the crime of robbery is required to be committed in the stage at which, immediately after the commission of robbery, or immediately after the commission of the crime or immediately after the abandonment of the criminal intent to commit the crime, the crime is not completed by social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1108 delivered on July 12, 1996). However, the crime of robbery is not necessarily required to be committed by assault by means of robbery, and the act of robbery is not to be committed before the commission of robbery. Thus, the crime of robbery is not to be committed even after the commission of robbery. Thus, if the victim’s psychological resistance impossible situation due to robbery has not been resolved by continuing to attract the victim after the commission of robbery or moving along with the vehicle, there is a somewhat time and space gap between the act of robbery and the act of injury.

2. A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court cited by the lower court reveals the following facts.

1) On January 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) on January 28, 2014, around 05:41, the Defendant boarded the taxi in which the victim was in operation; (b) displayed the knife, which was a deadly weapon, prepared in advance, on the lower part of the middle wing, middle wing, and the lower part of the knife at the lower part of the knife, leading the Defendant to the victim’s grandchildren and knife tape.

2) The Defendant, after moving the victim to the back seat, set up the said taxi and moved the victim to the off column on the same day at around 06:54 on the same day, and integrated the trees and arms with the string that the victim prepared in advance. The Defendant deducted the victim’s cash and two credit cards owned by the victim’s owner.

3) On the same day, the Defendant left the victim in front of the ○○ Saemaeul Community Credit Cooperative located in Gangnam-si around 08:02, and continued to set up the said taxi on the road, and opened the said taxi to the above safe until 08:11, had been given an opportunity to take the property by taking the property into the above safe, but he waived the taxi and went to another place.

4) The Defendant, from around 09:07 to around 09:10 on the same day, withdrawn cash from the above ○○ Saemaul Depository with the credit card taken by the victim as above.

5) On the same day, the Defendant driving the said taxi and went into the right sloping of Gangseo-si, 09:43 on the same day. The Defendant: (a) while driving the said taxi, and driving away the knife knife, which is a deadly weapon of the victim, kidd the victim’s shouldered; (b) knife the knife part of the said knife, where the victim was knifeed by his hand, knife the knife onto the knife; and (c) sustained the victim’s injury. The Defendant, who re-runed the said taxi, driven the said taxi to the knife of 56 km of the knifeung-si, Seocheon-si,

B. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, while the defendant returns the victim to the taxi taken by force from the victim, the victim was in a state of continuous suppression by the robbery committed by the defendant. Thus, if the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim who intends to flee from the defendant, it may be deemed that the defendant committed an injury to "the opportunity of robbery" in the state where the commission of robbery was not completed by social norms, and it shall not be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes an independent act committed in a separate opportunity from robbery by a new resolution. Therefore, it is reasonable to punish the defendant as an independent crime of robbery, not a concurrent crime of violation of the Punishment of Special Robbery and Violence, etc. Act (the act of the defendant).

C. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the injury by robbery of this case is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the timing of the crime of robbery and injury by robbery. The Supreme Court decision in the grounds of appeal is related to the number of crimes of confinement and the crime of injury by robbery, and it is not appropriate

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)