beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, ① it is difficult to see that an accomplice C’s act constitutes an assault in the crime of robbery, ② it is difficult to see that the injured party’s situation also constitutes an injury in the crime of robbery. ③ The Defendant could not have predicted that the accomplice C would commit the crime of robbery, and thus, it is difficult to view that he is liable for the crime of robbery.
(2) In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny), since it is unclear whether the criminal records imposed by the defendant around 1986 applied the "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" at the time, it is necessary to confirm whether there is any error in the part of applying the "Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. (1) In relation to the fact of injury by robbery, the degree of violence or intimidation as necessary to establish the crime of quasi-Robbery as prescribed in Article 335 of the Criminal Code is exempted from the extent that it is generally and objectively possible as a means to suppress the other party's resistance, and it does not necessarily require that the other party has practically threatened his resistance.
(Supreme Court Decision 81Do409 delivered on March 24, 1981). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the accomplice C committed an assault, such as having the victim’s face at least three to four times, and walking the victim’s chest, with a view to evading arrest beyond the passive resistance. The accomplice C’s act is generally contrary to the other party’s claim in light of the degree, method, and frequency of the assault.