Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-tae

Law Firm Chang-Gong, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and six months, and by imprisonment for three years and six months, respectively;

2. The 152-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1, and the 151-day detention period shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 2; and

3. One Makkn (Seizure Nos. 9) and one hat (Seizure No. 10) that has been seized are confiscated from Defendant 1, and one knife (Seizure No. 11) that has been seized are confiscated from Defendant 2.

4. The following shall be returned to the victim non-indicted 1: one hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand over the length of body, 10,00 won 10,00 won 10,00 won 50 won 10,000 won 50 won 50,000 won 50 won 50,000 won 50 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 50,000 won 10,000 won 10,000 won 10,

1. Issues;

The summary of the prosecution by the prosecutor is that the defendants conspired to use a lethal weapon and forcibly take the property (legal punishment: imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for a life or for a period of not less than five years), and caused the injury of the people (legal punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or with prison labor for not more than 20 million won), Defendant 1 caused the injury of the people by negligence in the course of performing duties (legal punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or with prison labor for not more than 20 million won), Defendant 2 driven a motor vehicle without a driver's license (legal punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or with prison labor for not more than 3 million won) and acquired the property (legal punishment: fine not more than 10 years or with prison labor for not more than 20 million won). On this point, Defendant 1 did not cause the injury by force while taking the property as to the injury by robbery, but did not dispute the crime of robbery and robbery as to “the injury by robbery” and did not constitute a robbery.

2. Criminal facts proved strictly;

(a) A case 2006 Highis880;

1) Criminal facts

㈎ 피고인들은, 대구 중구 남산동에 있는 (명칭 생략) 중국음식점에서 일을 하다가 그곳 주인에게 갚아야 할 선불금 1,000,000원을 마련하지 못하게 되자 렌트한 (차량번호 생략) 승용차를 함께 타고 돌아다니다가 범행대상 여성이 나타나면 피고인 1은 범행대상을 쫓아가 돈을 빼앗고, 피고인 2는 위 승용차에서 대기하다가 범행을 끝낸 피고인 1을 차에 태워 도주하기로 공모하고,

(1) On November 29, 2006, at the entrance of the Strineg in Daegu Suwon-gu, 03:00, Defendant 1: (a) took the victim’s knife with his left hand to the victim Nonindicted 2 (n) who returned home after completing a restaurant work; (b) took the victim’s knife (15 cm in length) into the victim’s side knife with his hand; (c) took the victim’s knife (15 cm in length) into the victim’s side knife; (d) took the victim’s knife into the above knife parking lot; and (e) took the victim’s knife with his knife at the same time as the knife 114, 2006, 32,000 won in cash, and 252,000 won in market price of the mobile phone; and (e) took the victim’s side from the victim’s.

B. On December 1, 2006, at approximately 11:00, Defendant 1: (a) discovered the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (Y, 55 years of age) who tried to withdraw money from the cash withdrawal machine in the middle of the Daegu Bank, to enter the bank; and (b) sought access to the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (Y, 55 years of age) who tried to run the bank; (c) the victim tried to grow up the hands over his left arms; (d) the victim was able to do so so so so so so so so so so so so, the victim was able to keep up to the floor; (d) the victim was 506,00 won, credit cards 2,50,500 won, credit cards 2,500 won, 200 won, 200 won, 200 won, 300 won, 200 won, and 360 won, 200 won, and 60 won, 200 won, and 300 won, and 600 won, market value of this.

㈏ 피고인 2는 2006. 11. 11.경부터 2006. 12. 2.경까지 사이에 자동차운전면허 없이 대구 일원에서 위 ‘㈎항’의 일시, 장소를 포함하여 (차량번호 생략) 승용차를 운전하였다.

2) Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion

㈎ 피고인 1과 그 변호인 - 물리력 또는 강제력 행사 유무 및 강도치상죄의 상해 발생 여부에 대하여

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that: (a) the Defendant merely frightened the victim in the course of escape by taking the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s hand room, and that the Defendant did not commit assault against the victim in order to take the victim’s hand room; and (b) the injury inflicted by the Defendant is extremely minor that the injury inflicted on the victim need not be treated, and even without being treated, there is no difficulty in daily life, thereby causing robbery not to be an injury to the crime of bodily injury.

According to the evidence of paragraph (3), 1, the victim non-indicted 1 tried to cut off the hand room that he had been faced with his left arms. However, the victim was forced to set off his hand room so far that he could not set up his hand room, 2, the victim who continued to take the hand room in the situation of the victim, and the defendant did not stop his act to take the hand room over, leading the victim over 5m or longer, 3, the part of the hand room attached by the defendant's act was turned down to tear, 4, the victim's hand room was taken out while being towed for more than 5m, 5m or more, 5m or more, 5m or more, 5m or more, 5m or more of the victim's hand room, and 5m or more of the victim's hand room, 5m or more, and 5m or more of the victim's hand room in the process of treatment and injury to the left side of the hospital and the left side of the victim.

According to the above facts, as long as Defendant 1 has no counter-proof evidence as to the fact that the above injury did not undergo a medical treatment but does not interfere with daily life, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 committed an assault against the victim by towing the victim who was putting a bank in order to return the property actively, or to resist the taking of the property, at least five meters, and the injury suffered by the victim was caused by the above assault, rather than by the defendant in the course of taking the Defendant away from a bank. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the injury was caused by the above assault. Furthermore, Defendant 1 submitted the statement of opinion of injury to salt, left kne and left knee, and the victim was treated in the hospital on the day he got the treatment by the above assault, and submitted the statement of opinion of injury to the victim. As long as there is no counter-proof on the fact that the above injury did not appear in the above medical treatment days, the degree of the injury cannot be inferred to be negligible and that the injury was caused by the injury and health condition of the victim in light of the circumstances surrounding the victim, etc.

㈏ 피고인 2와 그 변호인

(i) as to whether special robbery has been recruited or not

Defendant 2 asserts that there was no fact that Defendant 1 and November 29, 2006 conspired to commit the crime of special robbery.

피고인들의 각 일부 법정 진술, 제1, 2회 공판조서 중 피고인들의 각 일부 진술기재, 검사가 신청한 서증(이하 ‘검’이라 한다) 제27, 28, 29호증(피의자신문조서)의 각 일부 진술기재에 의하면, ① 피고인들은 중국음식점인 (명칭 생략)에서 피고인 2가 선불금으로 받은 100만 원을 피고인 1이 대신 갚는 조건으로 피고인 1이 (명칭 생략)에 종업원으로 들어갔는데, 피고인 1이 돈을 갚지 못한 상태에서 일을 그만두게 되어 피고인들이 위 선불금을 급히 갚아야 되는 상황이었던 사실, ② 피고인 1과 피고인 2는 2006. 11. 27.경부터 칠곡에 있는 여관에서 생활하며 같이 지내면서 돈을 갚기 위해 여성들에게서 돈을 빼앗아야 되겠다면서 농담조로 범행을 하자는 말을 여러 번 나누었고 그 과정에서 피고인 1이 돈을 뺏으면 피고인 2가 승용차를 대기해 있다가 피고인 1을 태워 달아나기로 하는 범행방법을 진지하게 협의하였으며, 피고인 1이 다른 사람에게 칼이라도 들이대고 싶다는 말도 한 적이 있는 사실, ③ 피고인 2와 피고인 1은 피고인 2가 후배 이성한 명의로 렌트한 승용차를 타고 돌아다녔으며, 2006. 11. 29. 이전에도 둘이서 차를 타고 범행 대상을 물색하다가 여의치 못해 여관으로 돌아온 적이 있었던 사실, ④ 2006. 11. 29. 특수강도범행에 사용된 회칼은 피고인 2가 구입하여 승용차 내에 보관하고 있었던 것이고, 2006. 11. 28. 밤늦게 칠곡에 있는 여관으로 잠을 자기 위해 들어갈 때 피고인 1이 승용차 조수석 사물함 안에 있던 회칼을 꺼내 상의 안주머니에 넣어 두었던 사실, ⑤ 피고인 1이 범행을 할 목적으로 위 회칼을 소지한 채 2006. 11. 29. 새벽녘에 수성구 중동 현대병원 부근으로 가자고 했을 때 피고인 2는 별다른 의문을 제기하지 않은 채 피고인 1과 동행하여 특수강도 범행 장소 부근으로 왔고, 피고인 1이 피해자로부터 돈을 강취하고 돌아와 가자고 했을 때에도 아무런 의문도 제기하지 않고 다시 여관으로 운전해 간 사실, ⑥ 피고인 2가 자동차를 운전하다가 정차한 시간은 새벽 3시이고 장소는 피고인들의 주거지나 직장이 아닌 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 1 to steal or forcibly take female cash in advance, and Defendant 1 took part in the act of taking female cash into account such conspiracy. As long as Defendant 2 was found to have participated in the conspiracy, Defendant 2 took part in the act of taking out cash against a female as his own means, even if Defendant 1 did not participate in the act of carrying out his own act or is different from the victimized female, there is no reason to distinguish between Defendant 1’s act of carrying out his own act and the establishment of criminal liability. Accordingly, Defendant 2 is liable as an accomplice of special robbery.

D. As to the existence of conspiracys for robbery and possibility of predicting bodily injury

Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 conspired only with Defendant 1 for the crime of larceny, and there was no conspiracy about the crime of robbery. As such, Defendant 2 did not be liable for the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery on December 1, 2006. As to the injury resulting from robbery, Defendant 2 asserted that there was no injury in the crime of assault or bodily injury resulting from robbery for the purpose of taking property or causing robbery, as alleged by Defendant 1.

According to the Defendants’ partial statements, the first and second trial records, each part of the Defendants’ statements, and evidence Nos. 27, 28, and 29 (Examination of Suspects). ① Prior to November 29, 2006, Defendants 2 conspired to commit a theft or forcibly taking advantage of the cash of Defendant 1 and women, and actually committed a crime of special robbery on November 29, 2006 (which denied the fact that Defendant 2 conspired to commit the above special robbery, but even according to Defendant 2’s statement itself, Defendant 2 had been aware of the fact that Defendant 1 took money using knife’s knife before December 1, 2006, Defendant 1 was released from Defendant 2 to Defendant 1’s seat at the time of the crime, and Nonindicted 2 was released from Defendant 1’s seat at the police station’s seat, and Nonindicted 1 was aware of the fact that knife’s body had been used as a weapon of 15 cm, and thus, Defendant 2 was subject to release of money from Defendant 16.

전항에서 인정한 피고인 1과 피고인 2 사이의 공모의 경위, 내용과 위 인정사실을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 2는 피고인 1과 여성의 현금을 탈취할 것을 공모하면서 적어도 피고인 1이 폭행 또는 협박으로 타인의 재물을 강취할 것이라는 점을 미필적으로나마 인식하였다고 봄이 상당하다. 이와 같이 피고인 2가 공모에 참여한 사실이 인정되는 이상 직접 강취행위에 관여하지 않았더라도 피고인 1의 행위를 자기의 의사의 수단으로 하여 범죄를 하였다는 점에서 자기가 직접 실행행위를 분담한 경우와 형사책임의 성립에 차이를 둘 이유가 없고, 또한 그 과정에서 피고인 1이 피해자에게 폭력을 행사하여 상해에 이르게 할 수 있다는 점을 예견할 수 있었으므로, 피고인 2는 강취의 과정에서 발생한 치상의 결과에 대하여도 책임이 있으며{재물탈취를 위한 폭행이나 강도치상죄에 있어서의 상해가 발생하지 않았다는 주장에 대하여는 위 ㈎항에서 판단한 바와 같다}, 피고인 1, 2 사이에 절도의 공모만이 인정되더라도, 피고인 2가 범행 현장 주변에서 승용차를 타고 피고인 1을 도주시키기 위해 대기하는 등 그 행위를 분담한 이상 역시 재물의 강취를 목적으로 한 피고인 1의 폭행과 그로 인한 치상을 예견하지 못한 것으로 볼 수는 없다.

(b) Cases 2007Gohap56;

Defendant 2:

1) On September 2003, the fact in the case-based mobile phone agency located in the long-term Dong in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, on the first and second day of September 2003 is that even if a mobile phone was purchased by lending another person's name, the victim non-indicted 3 did not have an intention or ability to pay the mobile phone price and the user fee. However, the victim non-indicted 3 stated that "I would be able to use the mobile phone only for three months if you lend the name, and will pay the mobile phone fee and the user fee." The victim allowed the victim to purchase the mobile phone under the name of the victim, and then the victim did not pay the total amount of 1,94,490 won of the mobile phone price and the user fee until August 2004, thereby obtaining the same amount of financial benefits.

2) On June 15, 2003, the fact at the top point of the Tong-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, without any intent or ability to pay money from others even if it borrowed money from others, the victim non-indicted 3, who falsely stated that "I would receive money from the house within a week," and he received 130,000 won from the victim, i.e., he received 130,000 won from the victim as the borrowed money, i.e., from the victim, from the victim, and acquired 300,000 won from that time to the police officer during the period of November 2003.

3) Around January 14, 2005, the fact at the Geumdong-gu Geumdong-gu 2, 742-2 was false, despite the fact that he received the advance payment, the victim did not have the intent or ability to work at the yellow half-point operated by Nonindicted 4, the victim received 1,370,000 won from the victim under the name of the advance payment, namely, 3,870,000 won from the victim, i.e., the victim received 3,870,000 won from the victim on January 31, 2005, and 5,240,000 won in total.

(c) Cases 2007Gohap111

Defendant 1 is a person engaged in the driving of the offland of Daejeon (vehicle Number omitted). At around 17:30 on April 27, 2006, Defendant 1: (a) around 17:30, Defendant 1 took measures to find the victim non-indicted 5 appearing on the left side of the progress direction due to the negligence of his own duty of care to reduce the speed, properly look at the right and the right, and prevent accidents; (b) Defendant 1 took measures to cut off the victim's left side of the river room of the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, with the speed of about 20km to the long speed of about the long speed of 20km; and (c) Defendant 1 took measures to cut off the victim's left side of the river room of the Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and caused the victim to take measures to cut off the victim's back to the left side of the river. However, Defendant 1 did not take measures to cut off the victim's back to the left side of the river.

3. Summary of evidence of admissibility and probative value;

(a) 206Gohap880 case (No. 2006 type No. 111182);

1) Partial confession of the Defendants

- Part of the Defendants’ respective legal statements

- The Defendants’ partial statements in the first and second trial records

2) Reinforcement evidence, etc. against partial confessions by the Defendants

- Any statement or record of each part of the evidence of No. 27, 28, 29 of the examination of the suspect,

- Each statement of 4, No. 8 (Protocol of Statement)

- Nos. 1, 7, 9 (each on-site seizure report), 3 (written evidence), 6, 13, 14 (written evidence), 15 (written evidence of driver's license), 17 (written evidence of car lease contract), 18 (Evidence Report), 19 (On-site Inspection Report), 20, 22 (Evidence Report), 21, 23 (Report of On-Site Screening), 30 (Report of On-Site Screening), and 31 (Investigation Report).

(b) 207Gohap56 (No. 2494)

1) Defendant 2’s confession

- The legal statement of Defendant 2

2) Reinforcement evidence against Defendant 2’s confession

- Each statement in the evidence 2, 3, and 5 (each statement of statement) of the Prosecutor;

- Each description of the evidence 1, 4 (each complaint), and 9 (the contents of Nonindicted 3 currency as the complainant), respectively.

(c) Cases 2007Gohap111 (No. 2006 type No. 45101);

1) Defendant 1’s confession

- The legal statement of Defendant 1

2) Reinforcement evidence against Defendant 1’s confession

- Each description or image of No. 1 (traffic Accident Report), No. 2 (Statement), 3 (Medical Certificate), 8, 10 (each Investigation Report),

4. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on criminal facts;

- Relevant legal principles for criminal facts

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 337 and 30 (the point of injury caused by robbery), 334(2) and (1), 333, and 30 (Special Robbery) of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury caused by negligence in the line of duty)

B. Defendant 2: Articles 337 and 30 (the injury caused by robbery) of the Criminal Act; Articles 334(2) and (1), 33, and 30 (Special Robbery) of the Criminal Act; Articles 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of without a license, inclusive) of the Road Traffic Act; Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (Fraud)

- the choice of penalties

Each choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery, special robbery, and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor, fraud, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

- Aggravation of concurrent crimes

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and (2), and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent Crimes with Punishment concerning Bodily Injury resulting from Robbery)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent Crimes with Punishment concerning Bodily Injury resulting from Robbery)

- Discretionary mitigation

Articles 53, 55(1)3 (see, e.g., favorable circumstances as described in paragraph (5) below) of each Criminal Code

·Inclusion of detention days of detention

(a) Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act (152 days = 31 days + 31 days + 28 days + 31 days + 30 days + 30 days);

(b) Defendant 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act (151 days = 30 days + 31 days + 28 days + 31 days + 30 days + 1 days)

- Confiscation

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

- Refund of Victims

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

5. Sentencing

In addition to the grounds for sentencing, such as the defendants' age, occupation, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the following circumstances after the crime, the punishment shall be selected by comprehensively taking into account.

1) The Defendants, as young young children of 30 years of age and 24 years of age, took a knife car and took the knife car without having been able to repay the knife the knife, and took money by using knife the knife and threatening or assaulting the female.

2) When Defendant 1 caused the injury due to Defendant 1’s negligence in the course of driving Oral Ba, the injured party is three children, and the injured party suffered serious injury to the left-hand light and the pelkes that require treatment for six weeks due to the Defendant’s criminal act. The Defendant was insured by the liability insurance, but the Defendant did not directly recover from the damage caused by the traffic accident.

3) The amount acquired by Defendant 2 is 750 million won and less than 750 won, and the small amount or damage has not been recovered.

4) The victim non-indicted 2 and the victim non-indicted 1 of the crime resulting from the robbery committed in the special robbery did not have the punishment of each of the Defendants. The Defendants are breaking the mistakes and reflecting them in depth.

5) The Defendants did not have any specific criminal record of being sentenced to a fine, and Defendant 2 does not have any good health due to the pro-Japanese salute of the left hand.

6) While Defendant 1 forcibly takes money, Defendant 2’s waiting around the scene of the crime to flee with Defendant 1, or taking part in the crime of special robbery and bodily injury resulting from robbery, such as driving a vehicle and driving it around, is relatively weak. However, the statutory penalty for the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than 7 years, and even if the sentence is determined to be mitigated, the minimum sentence is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 3 years and 6 months, and there is no reason to reduce the sentence against Defendant 2 otherwise.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in order to sentence the Defendants guilty.

Judges Yoon Jong-gu (Presiding Judge)