Cases where there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to quasi-Robbery.

In a case where the defendant tried to go beyond the fence of a car repair factory operated by another person for the purpose of theft and committed an assault, such as taking the inside side of the person in a right to escape arrest of the person in a way to escape arrest, and taking the inside side of the person on the ground by force one time, the defendant started night-time theft, a combination of residential intrusion and larceny, and therefore, the defendant committed an assault for the purpose of evading arrest, so long as the defendant committed an assault, the crime of quasi robbery is established.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 67No2005 delivered on February 6, 1968, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 2005 delivered on February 6, 2068

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal No. 1

The judgment of the court below (the first instance court) determined that the defendant's act was not erroneous in the judgment of the court below which applied Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to the so-called crime prevention guards, which the defendant tried to use the above vehicle repair factory's fence for the purpose of larceny, but did not apply the so-called quasi-Robbery to him. However, according to the recognition of the court of the first instance, the defendant was found to have no errors in the judgment of the court below which applied Article 2 (2) of the same Act. However, according to the judgment of the court of first instance, at around 5:30 a.m. of Apr. 19, 1967, 200 U.S. 64 U.S. Mail-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of larceny, and 64 p.m., the court below erred in the judgment of the court below for the purpose of larceny and the defendant's act of larceny, which did not go beyond the wall of the factory's wall to intrude the defendant.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal District Court, which is the original judgment, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro