[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반,보호감호][집34(1)형,431;공1986.5.15.(776),741]
Whether the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of bodily injury from among the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act are the same or similar crimes under the Social Protection Act.
Since the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of bodily injury are committed by expressing aggressive attitude to the victim by force of violence, it is recognized that the means and method of crime are similar. Therefore, the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of bodily injury in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitute the same or similar crime as provided
Articles 5 and 6 of the Social Protection Act
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Defendant and Appellant for Custody
Attorney Kim Hong-hoon
Seoul High Court Decision 85No2992, 85No374 Decided January 9, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of days pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment for twenty days.
The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime and the facts constituting the requirements for protective custody as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed against the other party’s unfair attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal that the amount of punishment is unfair in this case where the Defendant
In addition, since the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of injury are committed by expressing an aggressive attitude toward the victim by force of violence, it is recognized that the means and method of crime are similar. Thus, the court below's decision that the crime of attempted robbery, which is the criminal record of the defendant, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the crime of injury, etc.) constitutes the same or similar crime as prescribed by the Social Protection Act
Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are to include part of the days of detention after the appeal in imprisonment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act.
Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)