beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.06.14 2013노1007

강도상해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the victim of a mistake of fact or misunderstanding of legal principles did not constitute an injury resulting from robbery, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the crime of robbery and injury, injury refers to a change of the victim’s physical health condition to a bad condition, and a disability is caused to his/her life function. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and thus the injured party does not need treatment, and it does not interfere with daily life even without receiving treatment, and if the injured party’s physical health condition is naturally cured following the lapse of the time, the injured party’s physical condition was changed.

It is difficult to see that there is an obstacle to the function of life or that there is an injury in the crime of robbery.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2313 Delivered on July 11, 2003).

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

1) After the instant case, the victim taken a photograph of knee X-ray’s right knee, right blue, blue, blue, etc., at the time, the doctor was fluened by hand, and the X-ray’s result was considered to be fine. However, the victim recommended hospitalization to show psychological uneasiness and stability due to shock, and the victim was hospitalized at around 11 a.m. on the same day, and the victim was discharged at around 11 a.m. on the same day. 2) The reason why the victim was hospitalized in the hospital was released by the hospital, and the victim did not know about the responsibility of the victim if the head office was reported to the hospital, and the police officer was the police officer.