[2] The case holding that the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is established in a case where the victim committed a bodily injury by force while taking the victim's bags as a method of flag, thereby causing bodily injury

[2] The case holding that the crime of injury resulting from robbery is established on the ground that: (a) in case where the victim did not go against the victim while taking away the bags used by the victim under the law of day-to-day; and (b) the victim led the victim to knee, etc. by being towed by the amount of five National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea, which caused the victim to knee, etc.; and (c) the victim's forced force taken to suppress

If the act of taking property by using force as the so-called “flag” causes damage to the victim or causes damage to the victim, and such result has become easible in the course of taking possession without the victim’s resistance suppression, such act shall be deemed not to be robbery but to be a larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2316, Jul. 25, 2003). However, if the exercise of force is objectively, under social norms, to the extent that the other party’s resistance is objectively coercing or unable to resist, it constitutes an assault in robbery (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004). If it is discovered in the course of taking possession of the daily water law, and the act of taking property without taking advantage of it in the course of taking possession of it against the victim’s resistance, and thus, it shall be deemed that the act of taking the property by taking the victim’s property and taking it away from the robbery of the victim’s property.

원심이 적법하게 인정한 바에 따르면, 피고인들은 빌린 승용차를 함께 타고 돌아다니다가 범행대상 여자가 나타나면 피고인 1이 범행대상을 쫓아가 돈을 빼앗고 피고인 2는 승용차에서 대기하다가 범행을 끝낸 피고인 1을 차에 태워 도주하기로 공모한 다음, 2006. 12. 1. 11:00경 대구 수성구 황금동 소재 롯데캐슬아파트 부근으로 차량을 운전해 가 운전석 창문으로 농협 현금인출기가 잘 보이도록 차량을 주차해 놓고 1시간 동안 그곳에서 돈을 인출하는 사람을 지켜보고 있던 중, 피해자 공소외인(여, 55세)이 위 현금인출기에서 돈을 인출하여 가방에 넣고 나오는 것을 발견하고 피고인 1이 차에서 내려 피해자를 뒤따라간 사실, 피고인 1은 그 곳에서 400m 가량 떨어진 대구은행 황금동지점 입구까지 5~6m 정도의 거리를 두고 피해자를 따라가다가 피해자가 상가건물 안의 위 은행으로 들어가려고 하는 것을 보고 피해자의 뒤쪽 왼편으로 접근하여 피해자의 왼팔에 끼고 있던 손가방의 끈을 오른손으로 잡아당겼으나 피해자는 가방을 놓지 않으려고 버티다가 몸이 돌려지면서 등을 바닥 쪽으로 하여 넘어진 사실, 피고인 1이 가방 끈을 잡고 계속하여 당기자 피해자는 바닥에 넘어진 상태로 가방 끈을 놓지 않은 채 “내 가방, 사람 살려!!!”라고 소리치면서 약 5m 가량 끌려가다가 힘이 빠져 가방을 놓쳤고, 그 사이에 위 피고인은 피해자의 가방을 들고 도망가던 중 아파트경비업체 직원에게 붙잡힌 사실, 피고인 1의 위와 같은 행위로 인하여 피해자의 가방이 약간 찢어졌으며, 피해자는 바닥에 넘어져 끌려가는 과정에서 왼쪽 무릎이 조금 긁히고 왼쪽 어깨부위에 견관절 염좌상을 입은 사실이 인정된다.

If the facts are different, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s forced force used by the victim while taking a bank from the victim is merely a thief in the course of larceny under the thief Act, which steals the bank by a pure and violent way from the victim, and this constitutes a assault to the extent sufficient to suppress the victim’s resistance, which is committed for the purpose of suppressing the victim’s resistance, and that it constitutes an assault to the extent sufficient to suppress the victim’s resistance.

Nevertheless, the lower court, contrary to this, determined that the above Defendants’ acts were concurrent crimes of larceny and bodily injury, not of robbery and bodily injury. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on larceny and bodily injury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Prosecutor’s appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Furthermore, as to the scope of reversal, the court below sentenced the Defendants to the charge of larceny and bodily injury in this part and the remaining criminal facts of the Defendants, the entire judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)