Punishment of the rest of the accomplice in the event that any one of the robberys causes an injury to an opportunity for robbery;

In the event that one of the robberys causes violence to the victim in the opportunity of robbery, there was a mutual communication with the other accomplices about the fact that other accomplices will also commit violence as a means of taking property, and thus, even if there was no conspiracy about the specific injury, the result of the assault shall be held liable as accomplices.

Articles 30 and 337 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do1686 delivered on September 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 87Do832 delivered on May 26, 1987

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Law Firm Dongn Law Office, Attorneys Han-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 88No276 delivered on August 31, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence by 30 days.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 3 and his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1

If the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below are examined by comparing it with the records, it may sufficiently recognize the fact that the above defendant committed rape in the order of Defendant 3, Joint Defendants 2, 1, and 4 of the court below while he conspired with Defendant 2, 4 of the court below and Joint Defendants 1, 2 of the court below and 2 of the court below to conduct robbery, and Defendant 1 and 2 of the court below jointly take property from the victim, and continuously reported the network, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that found the facts against the rules of evidence in the court below, and since it is evident that the court below erred in finding that Defendant 1 and other Defendants committed robbery "joint" robbery, it cannot be deemed that there was no error of law by failing to meet the grounds of the court below or applying the law. The argument is without merit

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 2

In the event one of the accomplices of robbery inflicts an injury upon the victim by assaulting the victim on the opportunity of robbery, there was a mutual communication with the other accomplices about the fact that other accomplices will also commit an assault as a means of taking property taking. Thus, even if there was no conspiracy to specifically injure the victim, the result of the assault should be held liable as an accomplice.

If the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below are examined by comparing it with records, it is recognized that the above defendant inflicted an injury on the injured party due to the act of assault, which is the means in the process of taking property from the two persons, jointly with the defendant 2, 3, 4 and the co-defendant 1, 2 of the court below. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant 1 was unable to show the above result of the above injury at all. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of application of law by misunderstanding the facts without properly examining the judgment of the court below which ruled the above defendant as a co-principal of the crime of robbery and

3. Determination on the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

If the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below are examined by comparing it with records, all of the defendants' criminal facts cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, which found the judgment of the court of first instance guilty, cannot be employed to the effect that the judgment of the court

4. Determination on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal No. 2 and the Defendants’ grounds of appeal by state appointed defense counsel

In the case of Defendant 1 and Defendant 5, the judgment of the court below is appropriate even when considering the circumstances asserted by the above Defendants and state appointed defense counsel, and the amount of the punishment of the court below is deemed to be extremely unfair, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant reason to recognize that the amount of the punishment is extremely unfair. Accordingly, there are no grounds to support all the arguments. In the case of Defendant 2, 3, and 4, the above Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of each crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and some of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)