(b) Special robbery;

C. Violation of the Military Service Act

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(Co-operation)

2.(d) B

3.2. C.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the defendant A shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant C, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant A shall be issued.

【Criminal Power】

On May 22, 2014, Defendant B was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) at the Daejeon District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Daejeon Prison District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

2015Gohap12

Defendants are pro-Japanese simplified, and Defendant A and Defendant C are de facto marital relationships.

Defendants: (a) around November 4, 2014, at the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City’s residence, Defendant A and Defendant C conspired with Defendant A and Defendant B to commit a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint co-operation) on October 1, 2014 at the residence of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon, with Defendant A and Defendant C, and were detained, with a view to preparing the attorney’s fee for the kind-friendly F who is pending trial, using “G,” and “H” in order to draw up a man’s fee; (b) induced the drinking driver to drink with Defendant C to take off money and valuables from drinking so as to cause a traffic accident; and (c) Defendant B, having the drinking driver take the role of inducing the driver to drive a drinking vehicle by intentionally inducing the driver to drive a drinking vehicle, and (d) Defendant A had the driver take the role of inducing the driver to drive a drinking vehicle by using a bicycle in advance and by inducing the driver to play the role of his role in drinking.

1. An injury by robbery by Defendant A and Defendant B;

On November 5, 2014, at least 00:32, the Defendants used smartphone fluoring with the victim I (36 years of age) using "G" and "H" to drink with the victim at the same time, and Co-Defendant C was in the vicinity of the Daejeon Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Daejeon. At around 01:00 on the same day, Co-Defendant C was able to drink with the victim at the same time with the victim at the same l'L located in the Dong-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon, and 00 on the one hand, and had the victim drive the MM car, which is owned by the victim, at 0:30 on the same day, at the same time, at the victim's 0:0 morries, and had the victim do so at the same time, while inducing the victim to do so at the same time, the victim was able to do so at the market price of the above morg, which is a place of 0:00 morl.

As a result, the Defendants took the victim's property in collaboration with C, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as fluoral salt, which requires treatment for about two weeks.

2. Defendant C’s special robbery

The defendant, in collaboration with Co-Defendant A and B, led the victim to drive a MOus vehicle in the state of drinking alcohol in the same manner as described in Paragraph (1) at the time and place as described in Paragraph (1) above, and induce the victim to drive the above MOus vehicle in front of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon. The above A, which was waiting in the place, caused a traffic accident by getting a bicycle on board the above MOus vehicle, and immediately after the traffic accident, the victim changed the treatment cost, and the victim did not pay the agreed amount under the name of the treatment cost, and the victim did not pay it to the police. The victim threatened the safety of the bicycle at the ridge line of the car A, B and Si with the victim, and caused the victim to do so and caused the traffic accident in front of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon. The above A, which was waiting in the place, caused the victim to a traffic accident. The above B changed the treatment cost, and the victim did not pay the agreed amount under the name of the treatment fee, the market price of the victim's 6000,000 won and 1000.

Accordingly, the Defendant took the part in the property of the victim jointly with A and B. Defendant A and B, despite having to make a move-in report under the Resident Registration Act within 14 days when he/she moved his/her place of residence, Defendant A did not make a move-in report within 14 days after he/she moved his/her place of residence to Daejeon Dong-gu E and 203, Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon. Defendant A and Defendant B moved to the head of his/her place of residence to the head of his/her place of residence within 14 days without justifiable grounds. Defendant A and Defendant B agreed to use the “F and P, smartphone-type Q” program to take part in drinking, and to induce the victim to take part in drinking, thereby inducing the male driver to take part in drinking and inducing the victim to take part in drinking, and Defendant A and male driver to take part in drinking, and Defendant A and male driver to take part in drinking, and Defendant B will take part in drinking, and Defendant B will take part in drinking, and Defendant B will take part in drinking.

피고인 B은 F과 함께 2014. 9. 30. 22:00경 R 부근 번호불상의 렌트카 승용차량 안에서 스마트폰에 설치된 'Q' 어플을 이용하여 피해자 S(32세)와 채팅을 하면서 함께 술을 마시자고 유혹하여 피해자를 R 앞 'T' 술집으로 불러내고, P는 위 술집에서 피해자와 함께 술을 마신 다음 피해자에게 차로 집에 데려다 달라고 하여 피해자로 하여금 술을 마신 상태로 U 액센트 승용차를 운전하도록 유도하여 다음날인 10. 1. 02:58경 미리 정한 장소인 천안시 동남구 V 노상으로 유인하고, 그곳에서 대기하던 피고인 A은 자전거를 타고 위 액센트 승용차에 부딪혀 교통사고를 일으키고, 피고인 B 및 F은 위 렌트 승용차량을 타고 인근에서 대기하고 있다가 피해자에게 다가가 '술 마셨죠? 자전거 운전자가 제 친구인데 경찰 쪽에 벌금이 걸쳐 있어 사건접수를 하면 복잡하게 되니 현금 200만 원으로 마무리하죠'라고 하면서 경찰에 음주운전 사실을 신고할 듯한 태도를 보이고, 피고인 B은 피해자가 경찰에 신고하지 못하도록 피해자의 휴대전화를 빼앗아 바닥에 던져 부수며 피해자의 얼굴과 몸통을 주먹으로 가격하고, F은 도망가는 피해자를 붙잡아 주먹으로 얼굴을 가격하여 피해자에게 겁을 주었다.

After all, Defendant A and Defendant B conspired with the above P and F, and attempted to attack the victim and bring the money into money for agreement from the drinking victim, but did not bring the victim into money for the purpose of agreement. However, Defendant A and Defendant B did not commit an attempted crime but did not report to the police.

Summary of Evidence

[2015Gohap12]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants (including I substitute part)

1. Statement made to the police officer with regard to I (third time);

1. Each investigation report (report on the recording of telephone conversations for reference), investigative reports, and photographs of CCTV closures;

1. Application form for the data processing of multiple vehicles;

1. A medical certificate of injury and a reference report for fact-finding (2015 high-priced 108);

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement of the accuser;

1. Certified copy and abstract of the resident registration [2015 Gohap188]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and the defendant B

1. Examination protocol of suspect suspect of P by prosecution;

1. Examination protocol of the F by the prosecution (second time);

1. The police statement of S;

1. Investigative report (vehicles F as a suspect), investigative report (the statement of CCTV and witness W), investigation report (on-site confirmation and summary attachment), investigation report (on-site confirmation and summary attachment), investigation report (on-site confirmation and summary attachment), investigation report (record of the details of 112 Declaration), investigation report (record of the 112 Declaration), investigation report (record of the contents of 112 Declaration), and investigation report (a final and conclusive judgment, etc. of the F

1. H contents, on-site photographs, and mobile phone call records;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Investigation report on criminal records, etc. (B), investigation report (a copy of judgment on suspect A and B), investigation report (a confirmation of the fact of crime during the period of suspect B, the date of release, and the period of repeated offense);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 337 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 84(2) and 69(1) of the Military Service Act; Articles 6 and 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted joint conflict and the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant B: Articles 37 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 6 and 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted crime of insurrection and the choice of imprisonment)

C. Defendant C: Articles 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant B: the proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: Imposition of a fine provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) with respect to the crime of robbery and bodily injury, the punishment of which is heavier, and the violation of the Military Service Act;

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and the proviso of Article 50, and Article 42 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than the punishment specified in the crime of robbery and injury);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of each Criminal Code (with respect to imprisonment, Defendant A shall be sentenced to imprisonment, taking into account the favorable circumstances of the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant C: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A: Determination on the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A and B’s assertion

Although there was a conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery with Defendant C and there was no conspiracy to commit robbery. During the discussion of the victim I and the medical expenses, the victim did not assault the Defendant A and B while threatening the safety of bicycle, and did not commit any assault to the extent that the victim was injured, and there was no intent to commit robbery. At the time, it is determined that it is impossible for the victim to consult on the treatment expenses any longer under the influence of alcohol, the victim would again consult with the victim and drive the victim’s vehicle with the victim’s permission.

B. Defendant C’s assertion

Although it was at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime of robbery with Defendant A and B, there was no conspiracy between the above Defendants and the robbery and there was no sharing of any act of commission in relation to robbery at the site.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court as to whether the crime of injury by robbery was established by Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B attempted to receive an agreement with the victim under the influence of alcohol driving as agreed in advance, but the victim did not comply with the agreement, and forced the victim to take property by using the victim's vehicle and driving the victim's vehicle, and sufficiently recognize the fact that the injury was inflicted on the victim during that process. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant A, B, and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1) The victim driven a vehicle from the investigative agency to the instant court, and she was faced with the Defendant A who was on a bicycle. After that, the Defendant B demanded the treatment expenses of the Austria to change the amount of KRW 200 to 3 million. As the Defendant B had a bicycle safety bomb in the between the two vehicles to remove and send the money for the accident, the victim was threatened with the danger, and immediately deducted the bicycle safety bomb. After that, the Defendant B was able to look at the bridge of the two vehicles, and she went back to the following. After that, the Defendant A and B went through the bridge, and turned the bridge of the two vehicles, and lost the mind by drinking. The Defendant C was found to have been on the side of the vehicle, and the Defendant C and C were not aware of the damage to the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the injury.

2) 피고인 A, B은 피해자가 먼저 자전거 안전바 등으로 때리면서 위협을 하였고 이를 제지하는 과정에서 실랑이가 있었을 뿐 피해자에게 상해를 입을 정도로 폭행한 적이 없다고 주장한다. 그러나 ① 이 사건 당일 피해자를 만난 X에 의하면 당시 피해자의 머리가 깨져 피가 나고 옷도 다 찢어지고 입에서도 피가 나고 있었다는 것인 점, ② 피고인 B도 검찰에서 '피해자가 멱살을 잡고 때려서 자신도 때린 것은 맞다'고 진술하였고, 피고인 C도 검찰에서 '셋(피고인 A, B과 피해자)이 엉켜 있었다. 피해자가 맞았는지 겔겔거렸다'고 진술한 점, ③ 피해자는 이 사건이 있은 이틀 후인 2014. 11. 7. 정형외과를 내원하였고, 당시 피해자를 진료한 의사는 방사선 촬영 및 문진, 시진의 방법으로 피해자를 진찰한 뒤 '경추부 염좌, 요추부 염좌, 양 수부의 염좌, 수부의 표재성 손상, 안면부 표재성 손상, 두피의 좌상'으로 진단하고 피해자에 대하여 상처치료와 주사 및 약물 치료를 시행한 점, ④ 피해자는 피고인 A, B이 자신의 차량을 가져간 사실을 모른 채 차량을 찾으러 돌아다닌 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 A, B으로부터 폭행을 당하여 정신을 잃었다는 피해자의 위 진술은 신빙성이 있고, 따라서 위 피고인들이 피해자에게 반항을 억압할 정도의 폭행을 가한 사실, 그로 인하여 피해자가 상해를 입은 사실이 충분히 인정된다.

3) Furthermore, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A and B had induced the victim to drive under the influence of alcohol with Defendant C from the beginning; (b) there was no need for the victim to commit assault to the extent that the victim lost his mind if the above Defendants were simply intended to restrain the threat of the victim; and (c) the above Defendants used the assault from the victim and carried the vehicle by driving the victim between the victim and the victim who was unaware of his mind (the time when the victim lost his mind seems to have not been the victim lost), unlike the anticipated of the above Defendants at the time of the instant case, it seems that the victim did not want to reach the agreement properly, but rather did not want to bring the victim to the safety of bicycles, and therefore, it is sufficient to view that there was an intention to have contacted the victim with the intent of taking the victim's restraint at the scene of the instant crime.

4) On the other hand, Defendant A and B asserted that: (a) the reason why the said Defendants brought the victim’s vehicle to the victim was that the victim would be able to carry the name of the victim at the time and to reach an agreement again on the next day; (b) however, the said Defendants’ driving of the vehicle would have caused the victim to search for the vehicle with Defendant C and have him/her find the vehicle for one hour after sending the Defendant C; (c) the said Defendants did not find the vehicle; (d) on the day of the instant case, the said Defendants reported the theft and injury to the vehicle to the investigative agency; and (e) the said Defendants attempted to return the vehicle to the victim’s body in the process, and (e) the said Defendants attempted to threaten the safety of the bicycle and brought the vehicle back to the body of the said Defendants to the first time, and (e) it is difficult for the said Defendants to gain the victim to voluntarily move to the vehicle, and (e) it is difficult for the said Defendants to have the vehicle moved to the vehicle again on the day when the victim made his/her oral statement.

B. Whether Defendant C’s special robbery was established

In order for a joint crime to be established, a conspiracy as a subjective requirement and an action as an objective requirement must be shared. Since such conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, it does not require any kind of punishment, the intent of joint processing of a crime directly or indirectly leads to the implied view, and it does not necessarily require a prior process, and its conduct should be seen as having cooperative relations between time and place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do1757, Feb. 27, 1998).

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 C은 사전에 피고인 A, B과 함께 다른 사람으로 하여금 음주운전을 하게 만든 후 교통사고를 낸 것처럼 가장하여 금품을 빼앗기로 공모하였고 이에 따라 이 사건 당일 피해자를 만나 함께 술을 마시고 피해자로 하여금 피고인 A, B과 미리 정해둔 장소까지 차량을 운전하여 가도록 유도한 점, ② 피고인 C은 피해자의 차 안에서 피고인 B이 피해자에게 치료비 이야기를 할 때나 그 후 차에서 내린 피해자가 자전거 안전바를 가져와서 피고인 A, B을 위협하고 그들 사이에 몸싸움이 있었을 때에도 현장에 계속 같이 있었던 점, ③ 피고인 C은 검찰에서 '일부러 사고를 낸 것을 피해자가 눈치챘나 하는 생각이 들었다. 피해자가 트렁크에서 자전거 안전바를 가져 와 피고인A을 때렸고, 내가 자전거 안전바를 빼앗아 차 트렁크에 다시 갖다 놨다'고 진술한 점, ④ 피고인 C은 검찰에서 'B이 차를 타고 갔고, A이가 뛰어서 따라 갔다'고 진술하면서도 당시 피고인 B이 타고 간 차량이 피해자의 차량인 사실은 경찰에서 조사를 받을 때 알게 되었다고 주장하였으나, 피고인 C이 피해자를 만나 위 차량을 함께 타고 사고 장소까지 유인한 점, 피해자와 헤어진 후 집으로 돌아가서 피고인 A, B과 함께 피해자의 차량을 타고 부천까지 갔다가 차량을 버리고 대전으로 돌아온 점 등에 비추어 보면 위 주장은 믿을 수 없는 점, ⑤ 피고인 C은 피고인 A, B이 피해자의 차량을 타고 가는 것을 보았으면서도 이를 제지하지 않았고, 그 후 정신을 차린 피해자와 함께 피해자의 차량을 찾으러 다녔는데, 피해자는 피고인 C이 피고인 A, B의 일행이라는 사실을 범행이 끝나고 나서 경찰 조사가 이루어질 때까지 전혀 알지 못한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 C은 피고인 A, B과 적어도 이 사건 범행 현장에서 암묵적으로나마 강취범행에 관한 의사연락이 있었다고 볼 수 있고, 비록 피해자를 직접 폭행하거나 금품을 강취한 일이 없다고 하더라도 위와 같이 현장에 피해자를 유인한 후 피고인 A, B과 함께 현장에 있으면서 위 피고인들을 위협하는 피해자를 말리기도 한 이상 이 사건 강도 범행과 관련하여 실행행위를 분담하였다고 할 것이고, 그 실행행위의 분담은 시간적으로나 장소적으로 피고인 A, B과 협동관계에 있었다고 봄이 타당하다.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant C and the defense counsel is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of three years and six months from June to June 22, and a fine of 50,000 to two million won; (b) the sentencing criteria shall be applied 1);

(i)an injury by robbery;

[Scope of Recommendation] In the event of the result of injury, the basic area of Type 2 (Special Robbery)

Imprisonment (4 years and 7 years)

2) The scope of final recommendation and sentence: Imprisonment for not less than four years (the lower limit of the recommended range of the crime of robbery and injury on the ground that the sentencing criteria are not applied to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) as an attempted crime).

C. Determination of sentence: In light of the fact that the defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny that stolen property in collaboration with friendly B and F during the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and that the defendant A conspired with the victim B and F during the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor and received the agreed amount by inducing the victim S to drive under the influence of alcohol during the suspended sentence period, and that the defendant A committed the crime of taking property from the victim B and the defendant committed the act of taking property by force from the victim 1 through combining the aforementioned crimes with the aim of preparing the F's attorney's fees for the above crimes, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant A: Provided, That the joint crime of this case was committed in violation of the attempted crime; the damage amount caused by the robbery of this case was relatively smaller than the damage amount caused by the robbery of this case; the degree of the victim's injury was not much severe; the defendant A's age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the sentencing guidelines should be determined in full consideration of various conditions after the crime.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of three years and six months to twenty-five years; and

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(i)an injury by robbery;

[Scope of Recommendation] In the event of the result of injury, the basic area of Type 2 (Special Robbery)

Imprisonment (4 years and 7 years)

2) The scope of final recommendation and sentence: Imprisonment for not less than four years (the lower limit of the recommended range of the crime of robbery and injury on the ground that the sentencing criteria are not applied to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) as an attempted crime).

C. Determination of sentence: Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months: (a) in collusion with the FFF, etc. to induce a drunk driving; and (b) in collusion with A and F, etc. to prevent the crime of joint conflict under the same veterinary law within a short time after release; and (c) committed the crime of taking property from the victim after planning the crime of the same veterinary law with A and C for the purpose of preparing the attorney’s attorney fees who were detained in the above crime; and (d) committed the crime of causing bodily injury to the victim; (b) it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant B. However, considering that the crime of joint conflict in this case was committed in the attempted crime; (c) the amount of damage caused by the robbery in this case was relatively less than the amount of damage caused by the crime of robbery in this case; and (d) the degree of injury suffered by the victim was not much severe; and (d) other favorable circumstances should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months to fifteen years; and

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation Form 2 (Special Robbery) Basic Sphere of Robbery (3 years and 6 years of imprisonment)

C. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and 4 years of suspended execution, Defendant C shall induce the victim to drive under the influence of alcohol, pretended traffic accidents, and forcibly taken property from the victim in collaboration with A and B, and the nature of the crime is not good. However, Defendant C shall take into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the degree of the victim’s participation in the instant crime is minor; (b) the amount of damage incurred by the instant crime is relatively small; and (c) Defendant C is the first offender who has no previous criminal record; and (d) other factors of sentencing, including Defendant C’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (b) the sentencing guidelines is lower by comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the following circumstances.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Maximum-type