[강도상해피고사건][하집1986(3),403]
The punishment for the crime committed when a person is arrested after the police officer is arrested and transferred to the police officer after the thief and then was sent to the police officer by the police officer, while the police officer was sent to the police officer by the method police officer, and the person is arrested.
If a person is arrested of a criminal suspect and was handed over to the police station 200 meters away from the place to the victim immediately after the thief, and the person committed an act of injury for the purpose of evading arrest while being carried out by the police station by the police station, then the act of injury was committed for the purpose of evading arrest, the act of injury is in a stage which has not yet been completed, and is committed for the purpose of evading arrest in a state that was not left to the safety zone, and is in extremely close to the theft act, time, and distance, and thus, the crime of injury by robbery is established.
Article 335 of the Criminal Act
6Do1501 decided Jan. 31, 1967 (Articles 335 (9) and 451 of the Criminal Act) 82Do1352 decided Jul. 13, 1982 (Article 335 (21) of the Criminal Act) 84Do1398, 84Do214 decided Sep. 11, 1984 (Gong739,1679)
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul District Court (86 High Court Decision 116 delivered on April 1, 200)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the principal sentence of the original judgment.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel refers to a thief who uses violence or intimidation for the purpose of refusing to recover property or evading arrest or destroying a trace of a crime during or after the commission of the thief. In this case, the defendant was already arrested after the thief and transferred to another person after the thief and causing bodily injury in the course of carrying out the police box after the thief, which cannot be said to be a cause after the execution of the thief. Therefore, the crime of robbery cannot be established. Therefore, even though the crime of robbery cannot be established under the premise that the thief is established, the court below's judgment based on the thief, not the concurrent crime of larceny and bodily injury, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on quasi-Robbery and the crime of injury by robbery, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant, who is a juvenile of age, has committed the crime of this case beyond friendly age, and that the court below erred in its depth for a short term of three years, etc.
First, in full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below, the defendant committed the act of injury in this case for the purpose of evading arrest when he was arrested to the police station located at a distance of 200 meters from the police station and was handed over to the police station by the police station. According to the above facts acknowledged, according to the above facts, the defendant's act of injury in this case was committed for the purpose of evading arrest, and it was committed for the purpose of evading arrest without going away from the safety zone. Thus, the crime of robbery is established since the defendant's act of injury in this case was committed for the purpose of evading arrest, and it was close to the theft act, time and distance. Accordingly, according to the judgment of the court below, the judgment below which applied the robbery injury crime in this case to the defendant's crime in this case is just, and there is no ground for appeal by the defense counsel against the opposite counsel.
Next, considering the record and comparison of the criminal facts of the defendant and the circumstances, such as the motive, means, result, age of the defendant, criminal records, criminal records, relationship with the victim, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's sentence against the defendant is inappropriate even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant, and it is not thought that the defendant's grounds for appeal are too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the appeal by the defendant is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that 120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the original sentence of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Han-dae (Presiding Judge)