Punishment of other co-offenders who observe the children of the victim in the course of rape;

In order to prevent a victim from committing robbery with his accomplices, if the criminal defendant was involved in the robbery and rape committed by towing the victim who is bound by the accomplices in order to prevent the victim from reporting the robbery, the criminal defendant would have jointly processed the criminal defendant's robbery and rape. Therefore, even if the criminal defendant did not directly rape, he/she cannot be exempted from joint liability for robbery and rape.

Articles 30 and 339 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Young-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 85No1110 delivered on October 16, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The forty days of detention prior to the rendering of judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the facts charged against the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error in the process of cooking evidence, and therefore there is no reason to argue about the fact-finding and the process of cooking evidence. As determined by the judgment of the court of first instance, if the defendant committed robbery with Co-Defendant 1 and 2 together with Co-Defendant 2 and led the victim being bound by Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2 to prevent the victim from committing robbery, he would be jointly processed with robbery if the defendant was under surveillance of his children, and thus, he would not be exempted from joint liability for robbery even if the defendant did not engage in robbery. Thus, there is no ground to argue that the defendant's so-called "robial rape" is attributable to any measure taken against the defendant as a crime of robbery.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days before the judgment is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju