The nature of quasi-Robbery in the event that the thief commits violence while the thief was committed with the security guards who have not taken a theft at the place of arrest but brought water owned by them

In a case where the defendant, without the consent of the possessor or the owner, was discovered to the security guard and the person was discovered to the police station to report the arrest of the thief, and the defendant was well seen to have committed an assault while she gets on the police box, the act of the thief is deemed to be well known to the president by the defendant, and the defect in telephone confirmation is brought to the inside or after the confirmation of the stief while refusing to offer a proposal by the security guard, and even if the defendant was found to have been at the arrest site and had been at the last place, the act of robbery is deemed to have been committed if it was done under the condition that the defendant requested to prevent escape to the surrounding person.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Park Gyeong-hwan

Seoul High Court Decision 84No363,84No66 delivered on April 18, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The ninety-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for custody and defense counsel are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant and the requester for custody at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance. According to the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant and the requester for custody at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance. It cannot be deemed that the legitimate possessor or the owner obtained the consent of the court of first instance. Since the victim committed assault as stated in the judgment of the court below because the victim was willing to make a report or telephone to the police box, he was well aware of the fact that he was arrested as a thief, the president of the court of first instance, who was well aware of the fact that he did not have the right to call, brought about after the confirmation of the first instance court's judgment, which brought about after the first instance court's rejection of a proposal or sand and the first instance court's confirmation that he did not have the right to request a person to escape at the scene of arrest, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 95 days from the date of appeal after the date of appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)