[강도상해·유가증권위조·유가증권위조행사미수][집18(1)형,075]
Where a person intrudes upon another person's residence at night with the intention to steals another's property, it is reasonable to view that the implementation of night-time larceny begins.
When a person's residence was invaded at night for the purpose of theft of another's property, the criminal act of larceny has already been commenced at night at the stage of intrusion on the residence.
Article 330 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 69No589 delivered on February 12, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The sixty-five days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.
The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.
In light of the records in the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the court below's measure of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the facts of the crime of this case is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.
In addition, in a case where a person's residence was invaded at night for the purpose of theft of another person's property, it is reasonable to view that the act of intrusion upon another person's residence was already commenced with the commission of the criminal act of larceny, which is a night house as stipulated in Article 330 of the Criminal Act. Thus, in this case, around June 4, 1969, at around 23:50, he intrudes into the Non-indicted Party's house for the purpose of larceny, and conceals the defendant's so-called the defendant's non-indicted who failed to achieve the purpose was committed as an attempted crime of larceny at night, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the attempted crime of
In addition, in light of the facts admitted by the court below, it is obvious that the original judgment was the purport that the criminal defendant who was a larceny committed an assault or intimidation against the person who committed the larceny and the person who committed the larceny in order to escape from arrest. Therefore, there is no error of law in the original judgment as above.
In addition, the reason that the sentencing of the original judgment is excessive is that in this case where a four-year sentence is imposed against the defendant, the defendant cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal in light of the purport of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
All arguments are without merit, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 57 of the Criminal Act.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Judge) shall be the red net shots and the white shots