On July 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at D convenience stores located in Gumi-si, Sinsi; (b) at D convenience stores located in Gumi-si; (c) at D convenience stores, the Defendant took the victim E (19 cm) who was an employee of his carculter, with a pre-fashed weaponed weapon possessed in the back payment ( approximately 15 cm in blade) as the victim in the back payment, and took the victim’s resistance against the victim, namely, “infaculing the amount of money in a safe,” and took approximately 1,001,000 won from the victim in cash, and one resident registration certificate of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant took property from the victim with a deadly weapon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Photographss and victim photographs of the scene of the crime;

1. Investigation report (as to the investigation of the F counterpart of convenience store business owner and the change of the amount of damage), the defendant and his defense counsel had a mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime;

The argument is asserted.

However, it is difficult to view that the manner of the instant crime and the Defendant’s speech and behavior (at the time of committing the Defendant’s speech and behavior taken in CCTV installed at the scene of the crime) revealed the aforementioned evidence as the expression and behavior of the drunk person.

In particular, the Defendant demanded the victim to change the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and the hard disc containing the above CCTV images, and such speech and behavior are difficult to be held by a drunk person), and immediately after the instant crime, the contents of the taxi driver’s statement that the Defendant witnessed the Defendant (after the instant crime, he was operated to Daegu by placing the Defendant to his own taxi and received KRW 52,00,000 from the above convenience store, and at the time, the Defendant did not seem to have been under the influence of alcohol.

In light of the statement, etc., the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

[It is difficult to see]

Application of Statutes

1. Article 334(2) and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of punishment.