except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

On April 5, 2018, at least 01:20, the Defendant accessed the victim’s D (25 years of age, female) behind the crosswalk in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant crosswalk”) located in C, Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant crosswalk”), and led the victim’s kallon who was in a gallon of Samsung C (hereinafter “instant mobile phone”) to take the knicked hand of the victim, leading the victim to the underground report 29 meters away from his place to the degree of 29 meters, and led the victim’s resistance, and led the victim to the suppression of the victim’s resistance, the Defendant took the instant mobile phone of an amount equivalent to one million won in its market value from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused (second time)

1. Each police officer's statement (victims' statement) and each protocol of statement (second time), and the protocol of statement (third time);

1. Written statements of D;

1. A medical doctor E's injury diagnosis report and treatment feet;

1. 112 reported details, on-site reports, on-site reports, on-site investigations reports, ctv investigation reports, and investigation reports (CCTV tracking investigation, etc.);

1. Investigation record of seizure;

1. On-site map, photographs around the scene, photographs of damaged articles, images of the suspect, etc., face photographs of the victim's accompanying at the scene of the crime, ctv page photographs, etc., ctv page photographs, etc. of the suspect's escape route, presentation of the situation of the crime, distance at the scene of the crime, etc.;

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant tried to temporarily use and return the instant mobile phone from the victim. There was no assault or intimidation in order to suppress the victim’s resistance, such as cutting down the instant mobile phone, causing the victim’s grandchildren, etc., and there was no intention to illegally obtain the instant mobile phone.

2. Relevant legal principles

A. If the act of theft of property using force as so-called so-called "the act of taking advantage of force" causes damage or injury to the victim. If such result leads to a brush in the course of taking possession without the victim's resistance suppression, it is limited not to robbery but to larceny. However, if the exercise of force is to the extent that it is objectively impossible to suppress or resist the other party's resistance under social norms, it constitutes an assault of robbery. Therefore, the act of continuously leading the victim while taking advantage of the fact in the course of taking possession or taking possession of the property and taking off the property from the place of detention falls under robbery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7601, Dec. 13, 2007).

B. The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and does not require any intent to permanently hold economic benefits. Even when the possession of another person is deprived for the purpose of temporary use, where the use of the goods itself is consumed to an extent that the economic value of the goods itself is considerably high, or it is occupied for a considerable period of time, or abandons the goods in a place different from their original place, it cannot be deemed a temporary use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). Therefore, the intention of acquisition cannot be deemed as a temporary use.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the statements of witnesses, including the victim, are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, they shall not be rejected without any separate and reliable evidence that could reasonably lack credibility from an objective perspective. The mere fact that the statements of the witness are consistent with the main part of the statements, such as where they are consistent, and there is little consistency in the statements on other minor matters, does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do362, Apr. 15, 2005; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). However, in an investigative agency and this court, the victim not only made the process of the crime in this case, before and after the crime in this case, the Defendant’s words and surrounding conditions, but also included the characteristic and detailed description that it would have been difficult to make a statement if the victim did not directly experience, but also include the motive or detailed description that the victim could not have made a false statement with the victim’s motive or photograph near the scene of the crime in this case.

B. Examining the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, such as the testimony of a credibility witness D, in light of the relevant legal principles under paragraph (2), the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is sufficiently recognized, since: (a) the force of force exercised by the victim during the process of the occupation and exploitation of the instant mobile phone, as stated in the Defendant’s judgment, is to the extent of objectively suppressing the victim’s resistance or failing to resist; and (b) even if the Defendant took the instant mobile phone from the victim for the purpose of temporary use as the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, as in his own property, abandoned the instant mobile phone at a place other than the place where the victim took possession of the instant mobile phone in order to use it, and thus, the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is also recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

1) From April 5, 2018, from around 01:10 to around 010, the Defendant followed the victim who walked in the direction of the new response distance in Seongdong-gu Seoul, and the victim stopped in the instant crosswalk and accessed the victim’s right hand hand by approaching the instant mobile phone back to the rear of the victim. The victim took part in the instant crosswalk, and she sawed the instant mobile phone to the right hand of the victim. The victim saw her play, and she her play, she led the victim to the underground report of the Defendant, which was 29 meters away from the victim’s right hand, (34, 35, 155, 156 pages). However, the Defendant forced the victim to take part in the victim’s right hand, led the Defendant to the underground report of the Defendant’s her 29 meters away from the victim’s right hand.

2) The victim: (a) led the Defendant to the underground report (hereinafter referred to as “the instant underground report”); (b) led the Defendant to the Defendant’s unclaimed fear of defects; and (c) kidd the Defendant’s grandchildren caused by the cresh that occurred. The instant underground report was located at a place where the lower end of the instant pedestrian crossing; (b) was in the form of concrete structure at approximately 50 meters in length, both upper, left, and well-known; and (c) on the inside and outside of the instant underground report, the victim was in a very high state at one hour at the time of the instant crime (the investigative record No. 174 pages). The victim requested the Defendant to return the instant mobile phone several times prior to the instant underground report; and (d) the Defendant continued to use the instant mobile phone without stating the “the victim’s mobile phone within the scope of the instant underground report.”

3) The victim so far unfastened the Defendant, who did not differ to the Defendant in the instant underground report, was placed in place with approximately five minutes, and the Defendant was able to report the number of men in the vicinity of the mast, and requested a large sound. The Defendant, while taking in hand the instant mobile phone, went through the instant underground report, and escaped in the direction of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Housing. On April 5, 2018, the victim filed a report on the 112 mobile phone, which was in possession of another mobile phone.

4) The police officer, upon receiving the victim’s report, discovered the instant mobile phone located above the lower end of the concrete structure for the prohibition of parking in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, while searching the surrounding areas of the instant crime. The surrounding areas of the instant mobile phone was a place where people other than ordinary citizens, other than ordinary citizens, pass through the place where the house was concentrated depending on the railway path (No. 11, 14, 86 pages). After examining the instant mobile phone from the police officer, the victim received the instant mobile phone from the police officer, and the police officer left a pulverd in the case of the instant mobile phone (the witness D’s legal statement).

5) In addition to the circumstances where the Defendant took possession of the instant mobile phone from the victim, the Defendant was forced to use the instant mobile phone by 175 meters, and the Defendant was forced to use the instant mobile phone at a considerable distance from the victim’s right side before the instant crosswalk, and the Defendant was forced to use the instant mobile phone at the time of his/her use of the instant mobile phone to the effect that he/she did not have any choice to attract the Defendant, and the Defendant was forced to use the instant mobile phone at the time of his/her use of the instant mobile phone to the effect that he/she had no choice but to use the instant mobile phone at the time of his/her use of the instant mobile phone to the effect that he/she had no choice but to attract the Defendant to the effect that he/she would have been forced to use the instant mobile phone, and that the Defendant had no choice but to use the instant mobile phone at the time of his/her use of the instant mobile phone to the effect that he/she would have been forced to use the instant mobile phone at the time of his/her use.

6) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in order to return the instant mobile phone, the Defendant: (a) stated that “the victim would bring the instant mobile phone to this point; (b) left the place of the instant mobile phone; (c) the victim was unaware of the location of the instant mobile phone until the victim was returned from the following day of the instant crime after the police officer discovered the instant mobile phone during search; and (b) the Defendant sought the instant mobile phone by using the instant mobile phone with the victim’s escape from the phone to the phone (if the victim was the victim’s horse, immediately after the escape, the Defendant could have discovered the instant mobile phone); and (d) the Defendant passed the instant mobile phone to the opposite direction of the place where the victim was seated, and (e) the victim did not have been able to return the instant mobile phone from the victim’s entrance or place of the instant mobile phone at the time when the victim got out of the place of the instant mobile phone, and (e) the victim did not have been able to return the instant mobile phone from the victim’s entrance or place of the instant mobile phone.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 333 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Punishment】

Type 1 (General Robbery)

【Scope of Recommendation】

From 2 years to 4 years (basic areas) imprisonment;

3. Determination of sentence;

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the following circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances of sentencing as shown in the records.

The defendant is the first offender. The victim recovered the mobile phone of this case, which is the damaged product.

○ Unfairs unfavorable to the victim: The victim is trying to make a serious punishment for the defendant.

Judges Gender Equality Beneficiary

Judges Park Sang-hoon