Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, for a short of one year, and for a defendant B, for one year.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, a short of one year and six months, and Defendant B : imprisonment for a year and six months / Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, and a short of one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the injury by robbery excluding 24 K from the acquittal part), the Defendants’ act of taking the victim’s face and body after taking the victim’s goods, etc. (excluding 24 K from the market price) by hand and throwing them away from the victim’s body. Since the Defendants’ act of taking them out by using the victim’s resistance to the suppression state due to assault and intimidation, the crime of injury by robbery should be applied to the lower court recognized as concurrent crimes of special larceny and bodily injury, which erred in the misapprehension of legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unjust.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined ex officio, when applying the statutes on the Defendants’ criminal facts, and determined the Defendants’ punishment by committing concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the offense of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) with the heavier punishment.

However, the punishment provided for in the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) as stated in the judgment of the court below is against Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 1, 201). The punishment provided for special larceny among the crimes recognized to the Defendants is “a imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than ten years” pursuant to Article 331 (2) and Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since the court below selected both punishment for the Defendants’ criminal facts in this case, “where concurrent crimes are committed, the punishment of concurrent crimes resulting from the most severe special larceny shall be imposed,” and accordingly, the punishment of concurrent crimes shall be imposed.