(영문) 부산고등법원 2013.12.4.선고 2013노344 판결

On March 22, 2013, at around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) sent kack kack kack kack kack kack kack in the vicinity of the department store located in Busan, Busan; (b) sent kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack, and trik kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack, and tri kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack, and trik kack kack kack kack kack on the street near the department store; and (c) discovered the Defendant’s kack kack kack kack kack kn on the part of the Defendant’s hand.

Accordingly, the defendant strongly withdrawn the victim's property, and the defendant gets injured by the victim.However, the judgment was made.

1) In the crime of robbery, injury, or robbery means that the physical condition of a victim is changed to a bad condition of the victim’s body and the function of life is hindered. If the injured party’s body is extremely minor and the injured party’s body does not need to receive treatment, and the injured party’s daily life is naturally cured following the lapse of the time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical health condition was changed to a bad condition, or that his/her life function was hindered, and that the injured party’s life was damaged, and the prosecutor must prove that the injured party’s injury should be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003; 2006Do8035, Feb. 22, 2007; 2010Do10305, May 26, 2011).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the wife suffered from the victim's bodily injury, i.e., the part part of the body at the bottom of the left hand, and the part at the bottom of the roof divided into the roof 2). The victim was dispatched to the scene by 119 first aid teams, but the hospital did not receive any medical treatment from the hospital since then, and the victim was actually suffering from the above injury. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it seems that the wife suffered from the crime of this case did not interfere with daily life even if the victim did not receive any medical treatment, and it was merely that it could be naturally cured due to the passage of time, and it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone alone proves that the physical injury of the victim was unfairly infringed or its health condition was significantly changed due to the defendant's act.

3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the bodily injury resulting from robbery among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment below

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

On March 22, 2013, at around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) sent kack kack kack kack kack kack kack in the vicinity of the department store located in Busan, Busan; (b) sent kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kacks around 22:00 on the same day; (c) discovered that the Defendant was in a spring kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack kack, which is a deadly weapon in Busan, in front of the department store; and (d) discovered that the Defendant was in the second floor of Busan, the Defendant got out money and valuables from the victim; (d) caused the Defendant to escape kack kack kack kack kack, which is a deadly weapon in his left hand; and (e) prevented the victim to resist kack kack kack."

Accordingly, the defendant carried a deadly weapon and received a strong withdrawal of the victim's property, and the defendant attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. The original judgment and the statement in court room of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Seizure records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 342, 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 (Attempted Crime) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the crime of this case and the violation, the fact that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in an economically difficult situation, and the fact that the crime of this case was committed in the attempted crime is committed.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the attempted withdrawal of money by entering the singing room operated by the victim, carrying with jackacker, which is a deadly weapon. In light of the method, content and result of the crime, etc., the crime of this case is not provided against the victim. The defendant is already sentenced to criminal punishment twice due to fraud, etc., and is already subject to criminal punishment several times, and the defendant did not agree with the victim and did not take any measures for the recovery of damage.

In full view of all the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, means and result of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in the same manner.

The summary of the injury resulting from robbery among the facts charged in the instant case is as described in Article 2-1(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. As seen in Article 2-2(b) of the same Act, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as a conviction is pronounced for a crime of attempted special robbery in the judgment within the scope of the