[강도살인][공1987.3.1.(795),327]
Examples recognizing the liability for the attempted murder of robbery
The defendants (A) who purchased about 20 centimeters in length from the taxi driver and suspended a taxi at a single-class place where they knee and knee are knee in their left side, with a view to taking money and valuables by force. The defendants (A) who were on the back side of the driver's knee kne kne kne kne kne and kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kn in each side of the kne kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side kn's side k.
Articles 338 and 342 of the Criminal Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Attorney Park Ho-ju
Daegu High Court Decision 86No1028 delivered on October 8, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after the appeal shall be calculated by 35 days in the original sentence.
The Defendants and defense days' grounds of appeal are examined together.
1. The defendants purchased approximately 20 cm in length from a taxi driver with the intention of taking money and other valuables up to 20 cm in length, and stopped one taxi in a single place where knee and knee are kniffed with their left side side knife as the roof, and then Defendant 1, who was on the back of the driver's knife, knife with the front side of the driver's knife with the knife and the knife with the front side of the driver's knife and the knife with the front side of the driver's knife one time each, and therefore, the knife and the knife knife knife knife escape with the victim's side knife. As such, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the attempted murder of the defendant 2.
In addition, according to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable and there is no misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence ( even if the suspect interrogation protocol prepared for handling affairs by judicial police officers was prepared by adviser and coercion, the court below did not consider it as evidence of conviction).
2. The grounds for the dismissal of unreasonable sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in a case on which seven years of imprisonment and five years of imprisonment are imposed. Thus, the grounds for the dismissal of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without merit, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)