beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the text, etc. of Article 335 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the subject of quasi-Robbery and quasi-Robbery, prosecutor 1) in light of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part concerning the innocence), the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter
In interpreting Article 5-4(5)1, the preceding crime is not always limited to the crimes under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles in finding a not-guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged. 2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court determined that the crime of robbery committed by the Defendant on September 13, 2013 does not constitute “a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or an attempted crime” as provided by Article 5-4(5)1 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, and that Article 335 of the Criminal Act provides that “When the thief uses violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to destroy a trace of the crime, the crime shall be punished under the preceding two Articles.” Even though Article 335 of the Criminal Act provides that the subject of the crime of robbery is limited to a thief, even though the thief is not limited to a thief, and the crime was eventually changed into a robbery or intimidation, it cannot be evaluated as identical to the crime of robbery, and thus, the Defendant was acquitted of the Defendant on the ground that the crime does not constitute imprisonment with prison labor as provided by Article 5-4(5)1 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act.”
In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor.