The case holding that the so-called "special robbery" using a lethal weapon is a quasi-Robbery by a simple thief who has made intimidation in order to escape arrest.

[Majority Opinion] In a case where a thief did not carry a deadly weapon at the first time, but only when he uses a deadly weapon with intent to escape arrest, it would constitute quasi-Robbery (special robbery) in accordance with Article 334 of the Criminal Act.

[In Article 335 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the crime of robbery], the subject of the crime must be a thief, and the subject of the crime must be the subject of the crime, and the degree and method of the act that is not limited to assault and intimidation, and there is no mention about the degree and method of the act. Therefore, the purpose and act is not based on the degree of simple robbery or whether it is a special robbery, so there is no basis to distinguish it from the object and act

Articles 335, 333, and 334 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Lee Yong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 73No409 delivered on May 31, 1973

The appeal is dismissed. One hundred and fifty days out of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defense counsel and the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 333 of the Criminal Act and Article 334 of the Criminal Act provide that, in light of the first instance court’s records, the examination of the evidence, as well as the records, cannot be recognized as unlawful in the original judgment, and the facts constituting a crime. Thus, in this case where the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and where the Defendant uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest, or to destroy a crime, it shall not be a lawful ground for appeal, and the lower court’s act of assault or intimidation with the intent to carry a dangerous weapon with the intent to carry a dangerous weapon after the commission of robbery or the commencement of robbery, shall be deemed to have been lawful in view of the following legal principles: (a) the first instance court’s act of assault or intimidation with the intent to carry a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit robbery, which is a quasi-Robbery, shall not be deemed to have been included in the category of robbery, and (b) the first instance court’s act of assault or robbery, which is a quasi-Robbery, shall not be construed in view of the Criminal Act.

For the foregoing reasons, I express my dissent.

According to the legal principles, the question in this case is how to see Article 335 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the consideration of punishment and the case of two cases in the quasi-Robbery. This is a new problem that occurs only in the current Criminal Code that could not be an urban problem in the old law. I see Article 335 in detail.

In addition, the subject of the crime is required to be a thief and the purpose of the crime is required, and the degree and method of the act is not limited to violence and intimidation.

Therefore, there is no doubt that there is no reason to distinguish between the purpose and act as quasi-Robbery and the punishment as a special robbery.Therefore, the analysis of the thief, which is the subject of the crime that must be urgent, is to find the reason for it. The current Criminal Law has already been able to go to the category due to simple larceny (Article 329), night larceny (Article 330), special larceny (Article 331).

In other words, it is necessary for a simple larceny to be punished by simple robbery for the purpose stipulated in Article 335(1)(3)(3)(3)(3)(4)(1)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(3)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)

In Article 335, the phrase “for example,” as the word, is the same as the word, and thus, the phrase “a punishment” is similar to that of “a punishment”. Therefore, the phrase following the example of special robbery is the special robbery, and the phrase that if the same is applicable in the case of attempted robbery, it is in accordance with the example of special robbery, and it does not mean that the elements of special robbery are brought about as it is and the covered is discarded. If a thief commits an act prescribed in the provisions of special robbery (Article 334), it cannot be understood as a quasi-Robbery in the same way as that of special robbery.

This is due to the fact that violence and intimidation are stipulated in Article 335, and violence and intimidation understood in this Article are sufficient if the degree of suppression of other's resistance is high. In this case, as long as the judgment of the court below that the defendant, who is a simple larceny, committed an act of exposing a deadly weapon, while having run away, he is merely a means of violence and intimidation, and thus, it is necessary to follow the example of simple robbery. The judgment of the court below, which was put in place according to the precedent of special robbery, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of quasi-Robbery, and thus, the judgment of the court below, which is based on this point, cannot be reversed on the grounds that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of quasi-Robbery.

The Majority Opinion argues that it constitutes the time when the Defendant carried a deadly weapon, which the Defendant tried to keep a deadly weapon in mind, falls under the case of carrying a deadly weapon. However, the Defendant’s carrying of a deadly weapon is not an element of quasi-Robbery (a deadly weapon carrying a deadly weapon is an element of special robbery as prescribed by the Majority Opinion).

As such, the majority opinion also aggravated the punishment beyond the clear door, and thus, it has reached the conclusion that the Criminal Code is against the principle of no punishment without the law which actually lives.

This point is the reason why us (the judges of each Supreme Court of Korea in the civil language, the civil defense system, and the private defense system) can take the dissenting opinion without having the same purport as the majority.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the unanimous assent of all participating judges except for the civilian judge of the Supreme Court, the judge of the Supreme Court, and the judge of the Supreme Court, and the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 57 of the Criminal Act to the inclusion of the

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)