(a) Whether it may be deemed that a thief crime committed after the lapse of 10 years from the last crime, which is the final charge, is a ground for a theft habit;

B. In the establishment of quasi-Robbery, the standard of determining the distance between the larceny act and the assault to escape arrest

A. Even if each of the crimes of this case was committed after the lapse of 10 years after the last special larceny was committed, the Defendant was sentenced to the punishment of larceny or special larceny for four times including the above last sentence. In addition, if the Defendant repeats the act of larceny over three times at a place near the heart of the new wall by using the vehicle and the large cutting machine, etc. as a tool of the crime, the means and method of each of the crimes, and the frequency of the crimes can be deemed to have been caused by the theft of the Defendant.

B. In a case where a thief commits an assault for the purpose of evading arrest during or after the commission of a thief, which can be seen as continuing an opportunity for the larceny, the crime of quasi-Robbery is established, and thereby, the crime of injury by robbery is established when the thief inflicts an injury.

A. Article 332 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352 delivered on July 13, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Daegu General Law Office, Attorney Seoyang-yang

Daegu High Court Decision 87No513 decided July 2, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

55 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

(1) Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance and the evidence admitted by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to recognize each of the crimes of this case against the defendant, and there is no error of mistake of facts or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit, in finding the facts against the defendant.

(2) According to the records, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant was committed after the lapse of 10 years after his last special larceny. However, the defendant is sentenced to the punishment of larceny or special larceny more than four times including the above last sentence. Further, in full view of the means and methods of each of the crimes of this case committed repeatedly over three times at a place near the 1st of the new wall by using vehicles and large-scale cutting machines, etc. as a tool to commit the crime, and the frequency of the crimes, each of the crimes of this case can be deemed as a form of the defendant's theft habit. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habitual crimes such as theory of lawsuit.

(3) In a case where a thief uses violence for the purpose of evading arrest during or after the commission of a thief, which can be seen as continuing an opportunity for the larceny, the crime of robbery is established, and thereby, the crime of robbery is established when the thief inflicts bodily injury (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352 delivered on July 13, 1982).

According to the facts of the second offense maintained by the court below in the first instance trial, since it seems that the act of assault by the defendant was committed during or after the commission of the attempted act of robbery because it was very close to the attempted act of theft, time and distance and was committed after the commission of the attempted act of theft because it was proper to rate the so-called "the crime of robbery" as the crime of robbery" in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the quasi-Robbery robbery, or in the incomplete deliberation, since it was proper to judge that the act of assault by the defendant was committed after the commission of the attempted act of larceny or the commission of the attempted act of robbery, since it was done in close vicinity to the attempted act of larceny, and it was proper to rate the so-called "the crime of robbery" as the crime of robbery bodily injury, such as robbery, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to quasi-Robbery robbery, such as theory.

(4) Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal is to be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)