[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반등피고사건][고집1980(형특),133]
Whether the confession of a female crime committed in an investigative agency is the self-denunciation of the crime;
When the defendant has already been indicted for other crimes and has already been examined, and answer to other crimes by an investigator cannot be deemed to have reported his own crimes to the investigation agency, and therefore, the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency as he cannot be deemed to have reported his crimes.
Article 52 of the Criminal Act
Defendant 1 and two others
Chuncheon District Court (80Gohap30 decided)
The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
80 days out of the number of days of confinement before the rendering of the judgment shall be included in the sentence of the original judgment against the Defendants.
The first point of the grounds for appeal against the defendants is that the court below erred in finding that the defendants had been forcibly taken into consideration despite the absence of the intent to take by force in the robbery of this case, and even if so, the defendants attempted to get on and escape from the above taxi and attempted to escape from the drainage of the above vehicles, and thus, such escape was merely an attempted crime, and the court below punished as an attempted crime. The second point is that the defendants 2 did not reduce or exempt the punishment against the defendant even though they voluntarily surrenders to the original judgment among the facts charged in this case. The third point and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants is that the judgment of the court below is improper because the amount of punishment against the defendants is too unreasonable.
Therefore, in light of the records, the first point of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel, as a comprehensive review of the evidence duly adopted by the court below based on the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants' special robbery against the above 1st taxi. Accordingly, the grounds for appeal on this point are not accepted. The second ground for appeal by the defense counsel is that, with respect to the crime of bodily injury among the facts charged in this case, the judicial police officer's handling of affairs against the defendant was the special robbery of this case and questioning the defendant as to whether the defendant did not commit any other crime except the robbery of this case. Thus, it is clear that this point is examined and the investigation is commenced. However, it is hard to view that the defendant already was examined as another crime and the defendant responded to this other crime after being arrested by an investigator cannot be deemed to have reported the crime by himself to the investigation agency, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to this case because it is difficult to view the defendant to have reported it to the investigation agency and whether the defendant's handling of affairs belongs to the free discretion of the court of appeal.
Then, examining in detail the various circumstances under which the court below lawfully investigated the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc. as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defense counsel and the Defendants, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel and the Defendants, it is not thought that the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is inappropriate and unfair. Accordingly, it is evident that each of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants cannot be accepted.
Therefore, according to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the defendants' appeals is dismissed, and 80 days of detention prior to sentencing shall be included in the sentence of the original instance by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges' fee-charging (Presiding Judge) Kim Jung-ho