(b) Injury by robbery;

(c) Fraud;

Residential Changwon-si ○○ ○○○ ○○

○○○ ○○○○ O in a permanent domicile

2. Na. Ma○○ (OO -OOOO), free of duty;

Housing Msan-si ○○ 00 - 00

OOdongOOO in the permanent domicile

Attorney Park Ma-young (for the purpose of Defendant 100)

Among the detention days before the sentence of this judgment, 92 days for the defendant Do○, and 93 days for the defendant Do○○ shall be included in the above punishment.

피고인 도○○은 2001. 2. 8. 부산고등법원에서 강도상해죄 등으로 징역 6년을 선고받고 2006. 11. 22. 부산교도소에서 그 형의 집행을 종료한 자인바 , 1. 피고인들은 합동하여 , 2007. 3. 12. 03 : 50경 창원시 ○○동 ○○ - ○○ 소재 ' ○○마트 옆 노상에서, 피고인윤○○이 운전하는 ○○호 라세티 승용차를 함께 타고 다니면서 밤늦게 혼자 길을 가는 여성들을 상대로 금품을 강취하기로 모의한 후 그 대상을 물색하던 중 마침 가방을 들고 혼자 걸어가는 피해자 김○○ ( 여, 39세 ) 을 발견하고, 피고인 윤○○은 길가에 차를 정차하고 시동을 켠 채 대기하면서 주위를 살피고, 피고인 도○○은 피해자를 뒤따라 가 피해자의 뒤에서 발로 종아리 부위를 차고, 왼 손으로 피해자의 목 울대 부위를 꽉 잡고 뒤로 잡아당겨 피해자의 항거를 불능케 한 후, 피해자 소유의 현금 2, 000, 000원 상당, 롯데 신용카드 1장, 경남은행 비씨카드 1장, 상품권 수량 불상 시가 300, 000원 상당 등이 들어있는 갈색 손가방 1개 시가 900, 000원 상당을 빼앗아 이를 강취하고, 그로 인해 피해자로 하여금 약 1주일간의 치료를 요하는 관절통 및 근육통, 편도선염 및 인후두염을 입게 하고 , 2. 피고인 도○○은 2007. 1. 12. 경 부산 ○구 ○○동 소재 피해자 ○○ 주식회사 ○○지점에서, 사실은 특별한 재산이나 수입이 없고 부산 ○○구 ○○동 소재 ○○라는 회사에 근무하고 있지 아니하여 대출을 받더라도 이를 상환할 의사나 능력이 없음에도 불구하고, 그곳 직원인 양○○에게 " ○○ 직원인데 3, 500, 000원을 대출하여 주면 24개월간 원리금을 분할하여 상환하겠다 " 는 취지로 거짓말하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 같은 날 대출금 명목으로 피고인의 ○○은행 예금계좌로 3, 500, 000원을 송금 받아 이를 편취하였다 .

Summary of Evidence

Facts No. 1: 1. Each part of the legal statement of Defendant Do○○ and Maap○○, 1. A witness Kim Jong-○’s legal statement

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor about Defendant Do○○, and ○○○, concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution;

1. Entry of the prosecutor's statement in the prosecutor's office's statement concerning Kim○;

1. Entry of replies for confirmation of communications confirmation;

1. To describe three copies of the records of sales of the victim among the documents of drilling;

Facts No. 2: 1. Defendant Do○’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police on ○○; and

1. Each statement of a loan transaction contract, certificate of account transfer, and details of suspect's income; and

Before the judgment: 1. Each description of the criminal records and investigation reports (date of release from the court and report attached to the judgment) against Defendant Do○○○

Judgment on the Issues

1. Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that Defendant ○○ did not contain a conspiracy as to the first crime of Defendant Do○○’s judgment, and that at the time Defendant Do○ did not know of the crime of Defendant Do○○ at that time.

2. Determination

Article 334 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that two or more persons jointly participate in the conduct as a subjective requirement and objective requirement. The conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, and thus, the conspiracy leads to mutual agreement between accomplices directly or indirectly, and if there is a comprehensive or individual communication or awareness of the contents of the crime, it is established if there is a general or individual communication or perception of the criminal's intent, since the conspiracy does not require any process in advance, and its execution is in a cooperative relationship at time or at a place (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1197 delivered on September 13, 1998; 95Do2655 delivered on July 12, 196; 201Do4013 delivered on December 11, 201, etc.).

According to the evidence mentioned above, Defendant Do○○’s statement to the effect that it is insufficient for Defendant ○○○○ to enter the money from Defendant ○○○○○, and it was discovered as a robbery. Defendant 03: around 50, 03, where Defendant ○○○○ to walked a female victim, and Defendant ○○○ to stop off the vehicle, and then committing robbery as indicated in its reasoning. Defendant Do○○’s act of robbery. Defendant Do○ instructed Defendant ○○○ to escape from Defendant ○○○○ and attempted to talk with Defendant ○○○○○, and Defendant ○○○○’s cash was divided into the vehicle of Defendant ○○○○, where Defendant ○○○○ was waiting to run, and Defendant ○○○○○○○ to drive the vehicle immediately, and Defendant ○○○’s order to drive the vehicle on a relatively high distance from Defendant 1’s road to which Defendant ○○○ had no personal structure.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Defendant ○○ should be deemed to have formed a combination of intent by Defendant ○○’s intent to jointly process robbery with one another at an implied view. In addition, as long as Defendant ○○ was waiting for a vehicle to immediately flee after committing a crime in the vicinity of the criminal place while Defendant ○○ was committing robbery, it should be deemed that Defendant ○○ was in a cooperative relationship at time and at a place.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above assertion of Defendant leap○○ and the defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

1. Defendant Do○○○: Article 5-5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 337 and 334 (2) of the Criminal Act (the fact of causing robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud’s point and choice of limited imprisonment);

- Defendant ○○○: Articles 337 and 334(2) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes (as to Defendant Do○○);

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes, the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (the first crime as indicated in the holding), and Article 35 of the Criminal Act (the second crime as indicated in the holding)

1. Concurrent crimes (as to Defendant Do○○);

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in Article 1 of the Judgment with heavier punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation (for the Defendants, mitigation)

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Apr. 2, 201)

1. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention into the Defendants (for the Defendants)

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Southern New-chul