beta
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.01.06 2015노319

강도상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not inflict an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of robbery, and even if the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, it did not follow the intent of robbery even if the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, the lower court convicted him/her of the facts charged of robbery. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in its holding, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant, despite the materials on the financial status, etc. of the Defendant and his/her family members, assaulted the victim and inflicted bodily injury and evaded payment of the drinking value on the intent to take property benefits, such as the instant robbery charges, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime indicated in the facts charged against robbery, received money from a parent or a person who was in his/her duty and used it. The Defendant, including a drinking house near the scene of the crime indicated in the facts charged, did not calculate the drinking value independently and did not calculate the drinking value, and there was an assault if the drinking house owner does not engage in an act that was not a woman in his/her mother.

was stated.

② In fact, on December 7, 2001, the Defendant assaulted the said proprietor on the ground that: (a) on December 25, 2001, the Defendant was the time to complete the business of the Defendant, who was engaged in drinking at the drinking house; and (b) on December 25, 2001, was the time to complete the business.