Whether a case prosecuted as a crime of robbery can be recognized as a simple injury (crime of violence) on the ground that no proof of robbery exists.

Although a public prosecution was instituted for the crime of robbery, injury by robbery was pronounced guilty in the first instance, but there is no proof of the crime of robbery, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act may be punished without changing the indictment.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (77 Gohap93, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred and forty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the public defender is that the court below convicted the defendant of the charges that the defendant committed the crime of robbery in spite of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of robbery in spite of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of robbery in spite of the fact that he did not have any intention to forcibly take property from the same person at that time by taking the victim B in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged, and that the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges that the defendant committed the crime of robbery in the form of robbery. The second point is that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, even if it is not a domestic matter.

Therefore, I will examine from the first point of appeal among the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender.

The summary of this facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) had his wife in de facto marital relations surgery and post-exploitation to borrow KRW 100,000 in cash from pro-Japanese (24 years of age); (c) had such wife refuse to do so; (d) had him collect money from such person; (e) around 19:00 on December 3, 197, from the construction site in the E-market in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (e) had prepared 50 centimeters in length and 4 centimeters in diameter; and (e) had been driven by the above B; and (e) the Defendant had prepared 30 centimeters in front and carried out a so-called so-called "Saeng-gun, Sin-gun, Dok-gun" and (e) had collected 20 meters in front of his body and her body, and (e) had been found to have been on the left-hand side of his body, i.e., the above part of his escape., at the bar.

However, the crime of injury by robbery is established at the time of robbery, and the subject of the crime is required to be robbery. If the defendant denies money from the above B as shown in the above facts charged at the time, it is examined whether or not the defendant had the criminal intent to take money, as shown in the above facts charged at the time of this case, and evidence that is consistent with the fact that the defendant had been prepared in advance with the intent to commit the crime of taking property rights as mentioned in the above above at the time of this case, as stated in the above B and G, each of the above protocol of statement prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, each of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the judicial police officer, each of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the defendant, and each of the above protocol of suspect examination prepared by the judicial police officer at the time of handling the affairs of the defendant, but some of the statements prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer, which are hard to admit that the defendant had been forced to take part of the above protocol of prosecutor's or prosecutor's instruction, and that it is hard to acknowledge that each of the above protocol of the defendant's statements made.

In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant had a criminal intent to take money immediately at the time of loading because he was aware of the circumstances that are deemed by the above testimony at the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment and the court below's ruling that he had no influence on the above 4th time of loading of the above goods, but the defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had a criminal intention to take money at the time of loading of the above 4th time of loading of the above goods. Considering the witness Eul's testimony at the court below and the court below's judgment and the court below's testimony at the trial, the above witness Eul did not have any other evidence to prove that the above 10,000 won was loaded in the above 4th time of loading of the above goods and the above 4th time of loading of the above goods without his consent to ask the above 10th time of loading of the goods and the above 1st time of loading of the goods at the time of the above 3th time of loading of the above goods.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded in this respect, the decision of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided that the defendant and the public defender's remaining grounds for appeal are as follows.

Criminal facts

The defendant, who borrowed 10,00 won in cash from the above-mentioned B in order to use it rapidly at the cost of hospitalization in de facto marital relation, agreed to the effect that he will loan the above money from the above-mentioned person and want to do so, but he did not comply with the promise at the time and place of the above-mentioned promise. Thus, the defendant did not bring about a difference of money at night at around 19:00 and returned home to the above-mentioned E market in the above D market, by getting 10,000 mar and 10,000 margs and 10,000 margs and 1,000 margs and 1,000 margs and 2,000 margs to the left-hand side of the above margs and 19,000 margs and margs to the left-hand side of the above margs and 19,000 mar margs.

Summary of Evidence

The facts stated in the ruling:

1. A statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment of the defendant in the trial court;

1. Part of the protocol of the third trial of the court below which corresponds to the facts in the judgment of the defendant;

1. Among the protocol of examination of witness B to the witness of the court below, the part of the testimony corresponding to the end of damage as shown in the ruling of the same person;

1. The description corresponding to the facts contained in the inspection protocol prepared by a senior judicial police officer;

1. Any part of the medical certificate of injury to the above B prepared by K by a doctor, which is consistent with the part and degree of the upper part of the said person’s judgment;

1. In full view of the existing facts, etc. under subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence, the Defendant’s judgment is sufficient to prove such facts.

Application of Statutes

The judgment of the defendant constitutes Article 3 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years within the prescribed term of punishment, and the 140 days of detention prior to the declaration of the judgment by Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the above punishment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. In addition, the defendant's initial criminal record as well as his character and behavior, environment, and motive for the above crime, there are many circumstances to be considered in light of the character, behavior, environment, and the like, so the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive in accordance with Articles 62 (1) and 51 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)