강도살인
All judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants A and B conspired to injure the victim only by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. Defendant A and B conspired to injure the victim, but did not cause robbery or force the victim’s robbery. Thus, Defendant A and B’s acts constitute only a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.).
B) Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant H asked Defendant A to be unable to attend the association conference for two to three months, and did not present a specific method of crime by requiring Defendant H to disguisedly engage in the crime, etc., Defendant H’s act is merely a crime of injury, since Defendant B was unaware of his participation in the crime, and the indictment of this case was filed on January 2, 2014, which was seven years after the statute of limitations for the crime of injury was expired from May 11, 2004, and thus, Defendant H should be acquitted pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court recognized that the Defendants committed the crime of injury by robbery. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The lower court’s punishment (the 7 years of imprisonment with labor for the Defendants A, B, and the 10 years of imprisonment with labor for the Defendants) against the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing was too unreasonable and unfair.B. Prosecutor 1) had the intention of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and even though the victim’s death had a causal link with the price of the Defendant B, the lower court did not recognize it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts and misapprehending of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2 The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A and B (A) are subject to the direction from the investigative agency to the court of first instance to Defendant A to consistently commit a crime not relating to himself. Defendant B is subject to the direction from Defendant H to the first instance court.