Whether the degree of breaking a victim's bridge on a road where many people frequent constitutes violence in the crime of quasi-Robbery.

In the crime of quasi-Robbery, the assault must be an assault to the extent to suppress the other party's resistance, and on the road where many people frequent, the assault on the part of the victim's bridge cannot be deemed to constitute an assault to the extent to suppress the other party's resistance.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] 81Do409 decided March 24, 1981 (Gong335 (20) 453 of the Criminal Act, Gong656, 13856) 85Do619 decided May 14, 1985 (Gong755876)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 85 High Court Decision 412

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

45 days during the period of detention before the original sentence shall be included in the above sentence.

The execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final judgment.

The summary of the first appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of robbery, although the original judgment applied to the crime of robbery in order to escape the victim from arresting the victim as a thief, although the defendant was arrested after cutting off the bicycle, and was cut off the ground on the part of the victim's bicycle chain, and did not do violence to the extent that he does not suppress the victim's resistance, since the defendant did not commit an assault to the extent that he did not commit robbery, the court below's decision that the defendant did not go beyond 7 days after the police's initial trial to the point of view that the victim was fladule, and thus, the victim did not go beyond 12:0 per day of the crime, and it appears that the victim did not go beyond 12:0 per day of the crime and did not go beyond 12,000, and thus, it appears that the victim did not go beyond the victim's right to use the bicycle and the victim's right to use the victim's secret.

Therefore, according to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the following judgment shall be rendered again after pleading.

(The facts charged against the defendant include the crime of robbery, bodily injury or the crime of larceny and bodily injury, so it can be judged as the crime of larceny and bodily injury without the procedure of Amendments to Bill of Indictment).

Defendant,

1. At around 12:30 on May 9, 1985, when the victim talks about the bicycle rental at the (trade name omitted) bicycle conference operated by Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed address omitted), the victim steals the amount equivalent to 15,000 won at the market price of the bicycle rider owned by the Dong and owned by the victim using the gaps in repairing bicycles;

2. Around that time, the above victim, on a alley slopingd from a 100-meter radius from the above upper end, deducted the Defendant from a stolen bicycle rider, and set up against the Defendant, thereby damaging the said victim’s one bridge beyond the said victim’s bridge, thereby inflicting an injury on the Defendant, such as the 2nd section, etc. for seven days before the boom.

The summary of evidence is as decided by the court below, and it is citing it as it is.

On the other hand, the court below's decision 1. Second, Article 329 of the Criminal Code, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Code, second, Article 257 of the same Code, second, Article 257 (1) of the same Code, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment, where the defendant is a concurrent offender for the crime of injury sentenced to heavy punishment according to Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment, and 45 days of detention before the original sentence is included in the above punishment under Article 57 of the same Act. Since the defendant is divided as a primary offender, the victim is not willing to punish, and the damage is minor, etc., the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of this decision pursuant to Article 62 (1) of the same Act.

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

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)