In cases where one of the accomplices of larceny has committed an assault for the purpose of evading arrest, the thief's liability for the other accomplices who have not committed the assault at all.

With respect to the act of assaulting by one of the accomplices for the purpose of evading arrest, if other accomplices were not able to do so at all, and if they did not look at all about the act of assault, as well as did not know about the thief, they cannot be jointly liable for the robbery.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

July 11, 1959, 4292 Form 175 decided Jul. 11, 1959 (Article 335(1) of the Criminal Act), 451 Kao, 507

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (83 Gohap432)

1. The part on Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

The fifty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

2. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

160 days out of the number of days of confinement before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the principal sentence of the original judgment.

1. Nos. 1 of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and Nos. 1 of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2, each of the defendants at the time of the instant case, even though each of the defendants committed an act in the state of mental and physical disorder under the influence of alcohol and mental disorder, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment, and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel are inappropriate. The second part of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 1, was that the court below stolen the property in the tobacco shop as indicated in the judgment. However, although the second part of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 1, it did not inflict an injury on Defendant 1, the victim. However, since Nonindicted 1 reported that the thief was out of the lock, and escaped from the scene immediately, and thereafter, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the robbery or robbery of Defendant 1, even if Defendant 1 had attempted to escape from the arrest.

2. Therefore, in light of the health unit and the records as to Defendant 1, the fact that Defendant 1 was somewhat drunk at the time of the instant case does not seem to have reached the state of mental and physical disorder, but in addition, considering the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced Defendant 1 and his defense counsel for a period of three years and six months, and four years, is also appropriate. Thus, there is no ground for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel.

3. The following facts are examined as to Defendant 2:

As to the second point of appeal of the same defendant, the defendant 2 conspired with the above 1's tobacco straw, and confirmed that there was no intention to engage in robbery, and the tobacco straws as indicated in the judgment at the time of this case were stolen, and there was no intention to capture any injury as indicated in the judgment with the defendant 1, and the victim non-indicted 1's sound emitted out of the straws was not anticipated to inflict any injury on the non-indicted 1 for the purpose of escape of arrest. The non-indicted 2's statement at the court below and the court below's judgment that the non-indicted 1's tobacco 2's tobacco straws were cut off, and the non-indicted 2's tobacco 2's tobacco straws were cut off, and the non-indicted 1's tobacco straws were cut off, and the non-indicted 1's 2's tobacco straws and the non-indicted 1's statement about the non-indicted 1's handling of affairs.

As such, there was no prior understanding or communication with Defendant 2 on the act of assault committed by Defendant 1 for the purpose of evading the arrest of Defendant 1, and the place where the above crime was committed was first known to be empty, and Defendant 2 or Defendant 1 did not have prepared in advance any tool to be used for committing the crime as well as deadly weapons, and in a case where Defendant 2 or Defendant 1 was able to listen to the network outside the door of the match and escape away from the match site, it is reasonable to see that Defendant 1 was unable to do anything else as to the act of assault committed by Defendant 1, which was caused by tobacco, for the purpose of evading the arrest of the victim, and it is reasonable to see that Defendant 1 was unable to do so. Moreover, if Defendant 2 or Defendant 1 did not have any prior communication with the victim, and furthermore, he cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery by robbery.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized otherwise that Defendant 2 committed the crime of quasi-Robbery injury in collusion with Defendant 1 shall be deemed to have committed an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the above appeal is reasonable and the decision of the court below that it is unnecessary to determine the other reasons for appeal by Defendant 2 should not be reversed.

4. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act Article 57, one hundred and sixty days out of the number of days of confinement prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the punishment against Defendant 1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below. Defendant 2 shall be included in the punishment against Defendant 1, and as to Defendant 2, the prosecutor added the charges of special larceny as a preliminary charge in the first instance trial and permitted the amendment of the indictment as a member of the party, and the initial indictment was lawfully changed, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act, the part concerning Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed and the party members

Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 on April 10, 1983: around 40: (a) around 40, when Defendant 1 came to have tobacco for the victim Nonindicted 1 (Taking place, 56 years old)’s management located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted) and Defendant 1 viewed Defendant 1 from the side, the Defendant included his hand in a tobacco counter, and took 68,700 won of the victim’s tobacco price and 10,000 won of the 15 box price in the victim’s tobacco, and Defendant 2 opened the said tobacco counter, and Defendant 1 stolen the said tobacco counter through the counter, and Defendant 1 stolen the amount of KRW 78,800 in total, by taking the amount of KRW 100.

1. Each statement made by Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 in compliance with this Court.

1. In the trial records of the court below by Defendants 2 and 1, each statement suitable therefor is made.

1. Each statement suitable for the preparation of handling affairs by a public prosecutor and judicial police officer from among the examination records of suspects with respect to Defendants 2 and 1;

1. The statement of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the judicial police officer dealing with his affairs, which is compatible with this.

1. It may be recognized by taking into account each existing situation, etc. of 4 A and 100 won per the issuance of the Bank of Korea (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2);

The judgment of the defendant shall fall under Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year within the prescribed period of punishment, and 55 days from the detention days prior to the declaration of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 2 was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of rough and mental disorder during the crime of this case, and according to the health unit and the records of the case, it is recognized that the above Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of this case, but it is not recognized that it reached the state

The gist of the facts of the prosecutor's primary prosecution of this case is that the defendant 2, in collusion with the defendant 1, stolen the property as shown in the above facts of the crime, and then, the defendant 1 was found not guilty for the crime of injury by robbery, because there is no evidence to prove that there was a prior contact with the victim for the escape of arrest, or that there was a pre-confiscing the injury, and that there was no evidence to prove that there was a pre-confiscing of the injury for the escape of arrest, and that there was an extra-confiscing injury in addition to the charges added in the court of first instance, as stated in the above reasoning, the defendant 1 should be found not guilty for the crime of injury by robbery. However, the defendant 2 should not attach a sentence of innocence in particular.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges O Byung-Jon (Presiding Judge) Park Dong-dong Kim-su