[2] The case holding that the crime of robbery cannot be deemed as an injury

[2] The case holding that the crime of robbery cannot be deemed as an injury

In this case where a sentence of imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years is imposed on the Defendants, the grounds that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable are not legitimate grounds for appeal. Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to infringe on the rights of the people subject to trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003).

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In the crime of robbery injury means that the physical condition of a victim is changed to a bad condition of the victim's body and a disability is caused to his/her living function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3099, Mar. 23, 2000; 2001Do5925, Jan. 11, 2002). If the injured party's body is extremely minor and so minor that it does not require treatment, and even if the injured party's body does not receive treatment, it does not interfere with daily life, and if it can be naturally cured due to the passage of the time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party's physical condition is changed to a bad condition or that the injured party has caused a trouble to his/her living function, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an injury to the crime of robbery injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1311, Nov. 4, 194; 96Do2637, Dec. 23, 1996).

In accordance with the evidence established by the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the defendants did not attend the meeting of the victim on September 15, 2002 and did not receive medical treatment from the hospital on the 17th day of the following day, and found the victim's face and part of the arms bridge by assaulting the victim several times in the process of identifying the victim's resistance at the victim's house on September 15, 2002 and suppressing the victim's secret number; the victim did not attend the meeting on the 16th day following the crime of this case as nurse; the victim did not attend the meeting; the victim did not receive medical treatment from the hospital on the 18th day of the same month; and the body was not issued even after the diagnosis was improved; the victim's body did not interfere with daily life; furthermore, the victim's body did not cause any harm to the victim; in light of the legal principles and records as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to robbery.

3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)