Whether the crime of robbery or rape is committed in the event of robbery while rape is committed.

The crime of robbery is established when a criminal with a robbery committed the crime of robbery committed the crime of rape. Therefore, the crime of robbery and the crime of rape can be established not only where the crime of robbery is committed but also where the crime of robbery is committed when the crime of robbery committed the crime of robbery and the crime of rape committed the crime of robbery. However, where the crime of rape committed robbery before the rape ends, that is, during the course of the commission of rape, during the commission of robbery, the crime of robbery under Article 339 of the Criminal Act is established since the crime of robbery is committed during the course of rape.

Article 339 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do1350 Delivered on September 28, 1977

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Do-young

Supreme Court Decision 88Do52 delivered on April 6, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 and defense counsel:

The crime of robbery is established when a criminal who has the status of robbery committed the crime of robbery committed the crime of rape. Therefore, the crime of robbery and the crime of rape can be established when the rape committed the robbery after the rape committed, and the crime of robbery and the crime of rape are committed. However, it is like the theory of the lawsuit that the rape committed the robbery before and after the rape committed the robbery, that is, when the rape committed the robbery during the continuance of the rape, it is immediately obtained the robbery status at this time. Thus, the robbery is deemed to constitute the crime of robbery under Article 339 of the Criminal Act when the robbery continues the rape after the rape was committed. The mere reason why the rape was immediately committed and the timing of the robbery was earlier than the commencement of the robbery does not affect the establishment of the crime of robbery. In addition, the crime of robbery and rape does not constitute a crime of rape, and even if the victim was rape, the judgment of the court below cannot be dismissed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.

As to the Defendant’s Second Ground of Appeal:

Examining the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery, and it cannot be said that the defendant had no intention to commit robbery due to the fact-finding after the completion of the crime. Therefore, there is no argument that the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in matters of fact-finding

With respect to the third ground for appeal:

In the case of this case where the defendant was sentenced to less than ten years of imprisonment with prison labor, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, the issue guidance is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)