[강도살인·특수강도·특수강도미수·특수절도·도로운송차량법위반·절도][집32(1)형,462;공1984.5.1.(727),651]
Whether there is a liability for the result of murder with a person who has discovered robbery;
In the event that several persons jointly commit robbery and robbery, if it is impossible to see that the other criminal was unable to do so in the course of the taking of force when one person was demoted or killed, the other criminal shall not be exempted from the liability for the crime of robbery. Thus, in light of the circumstances in which the criminal defendant (B) was able to show that, in advance, three persons other than the criminal defendant (A) were engaged in excessive or decline pipe, etc., and the criminal defendant (B) could not be able to see the other criminal defendant (B) as the principal offender for the crime of robbery, since all the defendants were able to take the breath and murder in view of the circumstances in which the criminal defendant (B) was able to do so.
Articles 334(2) and 338 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352 Delivered on July 13, 1982
Defendant 1 and two others
Defendants
Attorney Jeon Nam-sik, Kim Tae-tae
Seoul High Court Decision 83No2515 delivered on November 10, 1983
All appeals are dismissed.
The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of Defendant 2.
The Defendants’ respective grounds of appeal and the grounds of appeal as to Defendants 1, 3, and 2 are examined together.
When several persons jointly engage in robbery, the remaining criminal cannot be exempted from liability for the crime of robbery if it is impossible to see that the other criminal was unsatisfyed due to robbery. (See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352, Jul. 13, 1982) According to the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below, Defendant 1 and 3 did not appear to have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining facts of the crime of murder by entering the office of the court below where the prior inquiry was made, and the defendant 2 and co-defendant 3 did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining facts of the crime of murder by misunderstanding the provisions of the Criminal Act, which are the first instance court's ruling that the first instance court's prior inquiry was made, and the court below did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts of the crime of murder by 3, which are the first instance court's judgment.
Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. Under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal against Defendant 2 is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)