logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 9. 23. 선고 86도1526 판결
[강도상해][공1986.11.15.(788),3010]
Main Issues

The nature of the attempted taking of property and the crime of injury resulting from robbery, injury, and robbery;

Summary of Judgment

Article 337 of the Criminal Code provides that the crime of robbery, bodily injury or injury shall be established when the criminal injures or injures a person in an opportunity to commit robbery regardless of the taking or attempted taking or attempted taking of property.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Defense Counsel

Attorney Han Han-hoon

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1543 delivered on June 30, 1986

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The forty days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

Reasons

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

According to the evidence cited by the court below, the defendant's act of assaulting the victim as stated in its holding, strong withdrawal of the property, and there is no violation of evidence or incomplete deliberation in the process of fact-finding, which is sufficient to prove that the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in its judgment, committed an attempted crime, and spawned in the order of 10 days old and present, and there is no error of violation of evidence or incomplete deliberation. In addition, the robbery, bodily injury, or bodily injury under Article 337 of the Criminal Act is established when the defendant injured or injured a person during the opportunity of robbery regardless of the time and attempted taking of the taking of the property, so it is legitimate for the court below to set the so-called "the defendant's judgment as a crime under Article 337 of the Criminal Act" and the punishment of 3 years and six months old and above against the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under the opposite interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1986.6.30선고 86노1543
본문참조조문