The meaning of sea in the crime of marine robbery

It is reasonable to interpret that maritime robbery means the sea which can not easily affect the control of police officers, etc. on the land in light of the legislative intent of the aggravated punishment, and therefore it is difficult to see that the port, etc. is included herein.

Article 340(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and nine others

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in Articles 2 through 6 of the holding, and by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in Articles 1, 2, 2, 4, and 8 of the holding of Defendant 2, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in Articles 1, 2, 3 of the holding of Defendant 2, by imprisonment for the crimes listed in Article 1 of the holding of Defendant 3, by imprisonment for six years, by imprisonment for the crimes listed in Article 9 of the holding of the holding of Defendant 3, by imprisonment for six months, by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8, by imprisonment for

Of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment, 175 days for Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5, 170 days for Defendant 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively for Defendant 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9, 160 days for Defendant 1 and 3, for Defendant 1 and 3, and for Defendant 2, the penalty as prescribed for each of the crimes of Articles 1 and 3 as stated in the judgment, and for the rest of Defendants, the penalty as prescribed for

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for 4 years against Defendant 3, for 1 year against the crime No. 9 of the ruling, and for 2 years against Defendant 5.

The public prosecution against Defendant 10 is dismissed.

Defendant 1 received a summary order of KRW 2,00,00 from the Jeonju District Court Branch on July 16, 1985 to a fine for violation of the Fisheries Act, etc.; Defendant 2 received a summary order of KRW 500,000 from the Daejeon District Court on August 10, 1985 to a fine for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Defendant 3 received a summary order of KRW 500,000 from the Daejeon District Court on March 18, 1986 to a summary order of KRW 27, 1986; Defendant 3 received a summary order of KRW 50,000 from the Jeonju District Court Branch on July 16, 1985 to a fine of KRW 50,00 for violation of the Marine Resources Protection Order; Defendant 4 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two-year or more as of August 10, 198; and Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year or more as of Daejeon.

1. 피고인 1, 2, 3은 피고인 4, 공소외 1, 2(1985.11.21. 위 군산지원에서 각 징역 2년 6월에 4년간 집행유예의 선고를 받음), 공소외 3, 4, 5와 합동하여, 1985.6.15. 16:00경 전북 미성읍 연도리 항내에서 그곳에 정박하여 키조개를 작업선들로부터 사고 있던 피해자 선장 공소외 6, 같은 선원 공소외 7(47세), 공소외 8(36세), 공소외 9(31세) 등이 타고 있던 어선 혜성호에 피고인 등이 타고 있던 서산1호 선박을 접안시켜, 공소외 1이 갈쿠리로 공소외 9의 어깨를 찍어 위 서산1호로 끌어 올리고, 이에 겁에 질려 있던 공소외 8을 서산1호로 올라오게한 뒤, 피고인 1은 그들에게 키조개를 사면 가만 두지 않겠다고 위협하고 되돌려 보냈으나, 위 피해선원들이 위 위협을 무시하고 키조개를 계속 매수하여 위 혜성호에 옮겨 싣는 것을 보고 그 키조개를 강취할 것을 마음 먹고, 다시 위 혜성호에 접안하여 위 서산1호를 위 혜성호에 단단히 줄로 묶고, 공소외 6을 위 혜성호 선장실에서 꼼짝 못하게 하면서 나머지 피해선원들을 위 서산1호로 강제로 끌어올려 두 손을 머리 뒤로 하게 하고 무릎을 끓게 한 다음 피고인 2, 4, 공소외 2, 3, 4 등을 각목과 갈쿠리를 들고 주변을 에워싸고 때리면서, 움직이거나 반항하면 죽인다는 취지의 말로 위협하고, 피고인 1은 그 선원들에게 위 혜성호의 선원으로 일하면 죽여 버린다는 등의 말로 위협하는 등으로 피해선원들의 반항을 완전히 억압한 다음 위 혜성호를 위 서산1호로 끌고 장항항까지 항해 입항한 뒤, 같은날 22:00경 장항읍 소재 서해다방에 피해선원들을 강제로 데리고 가 앉아 있게 한 뒤 그 사이에 위 혜성호에 실려 있던 위 혜성호의 선주인 피해자 공소외 10 소유의 키조개 19,777개 싯가 금 4,500,000원 상당을 가져가 위 키조개를 강취하고,

2. The defendants 1, 4, 2, 6 et al., purchased a key gate with illegal fishing gear without obtaining a fishery license, permission or report in the Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, and conspired to sell it at a selling key, with the knowledge of the circumstances thereof;

(a) on April 15, 1986, around 16:00, 100 knife 10,000 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and sell 1,20,000 knife knife

(b) purchased from 1,400,00 knish 10,000 knives, a general catch of about 16:00 on April 30, 1986, and sell at 1,750,000 knives around that time at the above leisure ground;

(c) purchase at 15,00 knives of knives of 15,00 kives of kives of 16:00 on May 22, 1986 and sell at 2,250,000 kives of kives of kives of kives of kives of 2,100 won around that time;

3. Defendant 1, 4, 2, etc. conspired to purchase and sell an illegal catch, such as a cryp, kidle, etc., which were distributed by work vessels with unlawful fishing gear without obtaining a fishery license, permit, or report in the fishing village and inshore of the former Maok-gun, Maok-gun;

A. On February 2, 1986, around 14:00, the volume of 70 boxes, which is a general catch of 700,000 won, was purchased at 700,000 won and sold at 840,000 won at the above leisure ground around that time;

(b) around 14:00 on March 17, 1986, purchase a key 7,000 bags which are charged catches of 980,000 won per gold, and sell at around that time the 1,190,000 won per gold at the above leisure ground;

4. Defendant 1, 2, etc.: (a) in collusion with the sale key by purchasing a kib dog in which the working vessels contain unlawful fishing implements without obtaining a fishery license, obtaining a permit or filing a report in the territorial waters of the Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun;

(a) purchase at 14:00 on March 22, 1986 of 1986 aklight of 6,000 knives of knives of 7.20,000 kives and sell at 900,000 kives of kives of kives of fish around that time;

(b) purchase at 1,260,00 knish 9,00 knives, a general catch of 1,530,000 knives around 16:0 on May 17, 1986, and sell at 1,530,000 knives around that time at the above leisure ground;

5. The defendants 1, 4 et al. conspired to purchase a cream, cream, etc. with unlawful fishing gear and sell them without obtaining a fishery license, permit or report in the fish Cheongdo and inshore of the former Mado-gun, the Mado-gun, the Mado-gun, and

A. On January 16, 1986, around 16:00, the volume of 100 boxes, which are charged fish for a crime, was purchased in gold 1,00,000 won and sold in gold 1,20,000 won at the above leisure ground around that time;

B. around 16:00 on May 20, 1986, up to 1,530,000 knives of knives of 1,260,000 knives, which are general catches, sold at 1,530,00 won around that time at the above leisure ground;

6. Defendant 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 11, etc.:

around 14:00 on June 11, 1986, without obtaining a fishery license, obtaining a permit, or filing a report in the above fish-line inshore, and selling gold 1,190,000 won at the above fish-line at around that time, after purchasing KRW 980,000, a specific catch, which is a criminal fishing gear taken by the working vessels with an unlawful fishing gear;

7. Defendant 5 in collusion with Nonindicted 12:

A. On Apr. 1, 1986, at the port located in the new harbor located in the new harbor located in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and without obtaining a fishery license, obtaining a fishery license, obtaining a permit, or filing a report, the work vessel purchases 15,000 won, which is a criminal catch of 15,000 won, and sells at around that time the work vessel, the sum of which is 115,000 won, to women under the name of the undeveloped woman in the vicinity of the above place;

B. On Apr. 1, 1986, purchasing 15 boxes, who were charged with illegal fishing gear, and selling 100,000 won in total to women under the name-unregistered area near the above location around that time, at the port above the port above the port above the port above the port above the above mentioned above, and selling 115,000 won in total to women under the name-unregistered circumstances;

8. The defendants 2, 4, 5, and 6 are co-owned:

Defendant 1’s management (trade name omitted) who works for Defendant 1, etc. as an employee of the Defendant et al. wears a practice wherein the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife 1,00 won per 150 won per knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

9. Defendant 3, 7, 8, and 9 are jointly with Nonindicted 14, 15, and 16:

At around 15:00 on June 27, 1986, at the sea of approximately 20 maths from the upper judo, king-do, the king-do, the king-do, and the defendant, etc., knew about a large number of jums, etc., and first displayed an exclusive fishing operation mark. However, on the ground that the defendant 10, a chronic-ho vessel, other than the chronic-ho vessel on which the defendant 10 embarks on the above area, and a single jum, on the ground that the defendant 3, 7, and 8 mets the above 5 third jum, on which the defendant 3, 7, and 8 was on board, and 10 were on the defendant 5 third jum, the defendant 10 was combined with the above 14, 15, and the head and 10 of the defendant 10 were able to live together with the above 17th son face of the defendant 10, the defendant 17, and 17, and 8.

10. 피고인 9는, 1985.3.하순 일자미상 21:00경 충남 장항읍 원수동 1구 소재 장항중학교 앞길에서 피해자 공소외 18(당 17세)이 평소 버릇이 없고 전에 피고인으로부터 빌어 간 금 100,000원을 갚지 않고 거짓말을 한다는 이유로, 오른손 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴을 5회 가량 때리고, 양손바닥으로 피해자의 빰을 20여회 정도 때린 뒤, 가지고 있던 위험한 물건인 어망손질용 칼로 피해자의 왼쪽 팔뚝을 3, 4회 가량 찔러 피해자에게 요치 8일간의 좌수열창을 가한 것이다.

The remainder of each facts in the holding, except for each previous criminal record of the first head of the ruling, shall not be

1. Defendants’ partial statements in compliance with this Court

1. In the first protocol of trial, the Defendants’ respective statements corresponding thereto in this court are written;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in this Court by the witness Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, 17, 20, 21, and 22

1. Each statement corresponding to Nonindicted 1, 4, and 2 from among the copies of the first protocol of trial in the Jeonju District Court Military Assistance 85 high (number omitted), 85 high (number omitted), maritime robbery, etc.

1. Each copy of the examination protocol of Nonindicted 10, 8, 1, and Nonindicted 6 of the witness of the above 85 Height (number omitted), 85 Height (number omitted) case, and each statement corresponding thereto is written.

1. Each statement in the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendants and Nonindicted 1 and 2 as well as each statement corresponding thereto in respect of Nonindicted 7, 6, 8, 13, 19, 17, and 18

1. In full view of each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 21, 20, and 22 on the preparation of administrative affairs involving the statement corresponding thereto:

Each criminal record of the first head of the ruling,

1. Statement consistent with the fact that a summary order which became final and conclusive in the judgment has been notified to the defendant 1 and 3 from among copies of summary orders in respect of cases such as violation of Fisheries Act, etc. by the Jeonju District Court 85 high-pressure drugs (number omitted

1. In accordance with the record that the summary order which became final and conclusive in the judgment against Defendant 2 was notified among the previous records and confirmation reports regarding Nonindicted Party 2, prepared by the Hongsung District Prosecutors' Office in Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, regarding Defendant 2 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office

1. Statement that conforms to the previous judgment of Defendant 4 from among certified copies of the judgment in relation to cases such as 85 high (number omitted), 85 high (number omitted), maritime robbery, etc. in the previous judgment of the District Court; and

1. The first protocol of suspect interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 6, which corresponds to the previous records of the above accused;

1.As to the criminal records of Defendant 7 in the Maritime Police Register of the United States Armed Forces, each of the facts stated in the judgment can be recognized based on the records that correspond to the criminal records of the above Defendant. Therefore, all of the facts in the judgment are proven.

판시 각 소위중 피고인 1, 2, 3의 판시 제1의 소위는 형법 제334조 제2항 , 제1항 , 제333조 에, 피고인 1, 4, 2, 6의 판시 제2의 각 소위, 피고인 1, 4, 2의 판시 제3의 각 소위, 피고인 1, 2의 판시 제4의 각 소위, 피고인 1, 4의 판시 제5의 각 소위, 피고인 1의 판시 제6의 소위, 피고인 5의 판시 제7의 각 소위는 각 수산업법 제89조 제4호 , 제70조 , 형법 제30조 에, 피고인 2, 4, 5, 6의 판시 제8의 소위는 폭력행위등처벌에 관한 법률 제2조 제2항 , 제1항 형법 제257조 제1항 에, 피고인 3, 7, 8, 9의 판시 제9의 각 소위는 각 폭력행위등처벌에 관한 법률 제2조 제2항 , 제1항 , 형법 제260조 제1항 에, 피고인 9의 판시 제10의 소위는 폭력행위등처벌에 관한 법률 제3조 제2항 , 제1항 , 제2조 , 형법 제257조 제1항 에 해당하는 바, 소정형중 판시 제1의 각 소위에 대하여는 각 유기징역형을, 판시 제2 내지 9의 각 소위에 대하여는 각 징역형을 선택하고, 피고인 6에 대하여는 판시전과가 있으므로 형법 제35조 에 의하여 각 누범가중을 하고, 피고인 1, 3의 판시 제1의 각 죄는 확정된 판시 첫머리의 수산업법위반 및 수산자원보호령위반등 죄와, 피고인 백 기만의 판시 제1,3의 각 죄는 역시 확정된 판시 첫머리의 폭력행위등처벌에 관한 법률위반죄와 각 형법 제37조 후단 의 경합범이며, 한편 피고인 2의 판시 제1,3의 각 죄 상호간은 형법 제37조 전단 의 경합범이고, 또한 피고인 1의 판시 제2 내지 6의 각 죄, 피고인 2의 판시 제2,4,8의 각 죄, 피고인 4의 판시 제2,3,5,8의 각 죄, 피고인 5의 판시 7,8의 각 죄 피고인 6의 판시 제2,8의 각 죄 역시 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범관계에 있으므로, 각 형법 제39조 제1항 에 의하여 아직 판결을 받지 아니한 피고인 1, 3의 판시 제1의 각 죄에 대하여 따로 형을 정하기로 하고, 또한 역시 아직 판결을 받지 아니한 피고인 2의 판시 제1,3의 각 죄에 대하여서도 따로 형을 정하기로 하여 형법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 에 의하여 형이 무거운 판시 제1의 죄에 정한 형에 경합범가중을 하고, 또한 피고인 1의 판시 제2 내지 6의 각 죄, 피고인 2의 판시 제2,4,8의 각 죄, 피고인 4의 판시 제2,3,5,8의 각 죄, 피고인 5의 판시 제7,8의 각 죄 피고인 6의 판시 제2,8의 각 죄에 대하여서도 각 형법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 에 의하여 피고인 1에 대하여는 범정이 가장 무거운 판시 제2의 다의 죄에 정한 형에, 피고인 2, 4, 5, 6에 대하여는 형이 가장 무거운 판시 제8의 죄에 정한 형에 각 경합범가중을 하며, 피고인 1, 2, 3은 피해자들과 원만히 합의가 이루어졌고, 피고인 9는 소년인 점등 그 정상에 각 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 각 형법 제53조 , 제55조 제1항 제3호 에 의하여 각 작량감경을 형기범위안에서 피고인 1을 판시 제1의 죄에 대하여 징역 3년에, 판시 제2 내지 6의 각 죄에 대하여 징역 1년에, 피고인 2를 판시 제1,3의 각 죄에 대하여 징역 3년에, 판시 제2,4,8의 각 죄에 대하여 징역 1년에, 피고인 3을 판시 제1의 죄에 대하여 징역 2년 6월에, 판시 제9의 죄에 대하여 징역 6월에, 피고인 4를 징역 8월에, 피고인 5, 6, 7, 8을 각 징역 1년에, 한편 피고인 9는 소년법 제2조 소정의 소년이므로 소년법 제54조 제1항 에 의하여 위 피고인을 징역 단기 1년 6월, 장기 2년에 각 처하고, 각 형법 제57조 에 의하여 이 판결선고전 구금일수중 피고인 1에 대하여는 175일을, 피고인 2, 4, 5에 대하여는 각 170일을, 피고인 3, 6, 7, 8, 9에 대하여는 각 160일을, 피고인 1, 3에 대하여는 판시 제1의 죄에 정한 각 형에, 피고인 2에 대하여는 판시 제1,3의 각 죄에 정한 형에, 나머지 피고인들에 대하여는 위 각 형에 각 산입하고, 피고인 3, 5는 모두 실형전과없고 이 사건 각 범행에 가담한 정도가 비교적 가벼우며, 피해자들과 각 원만히 합의가 이루어져 피해자들도 위 피고인들의 처벌을 원하지 아니하는등 각 그 정상에 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 각 형법 제62조에 제1항 에 의하여 이 판결확정일로부터 피고인 3에 대하여는 판시 제1의 죄에 대하여 4년간, 판시 제9의 죄에 대하여 1년간, 피고인 5에 대하여는 2년간 위 각형의 집행을 유예한다.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, 2, and 3, the main point of marine robbery, which was primarily charged with the crime of special robbery, is that Defendant 1, 2, and 3 took the clock at sea by multiple force, such as the entry of facts in the judgment of the court in collusion with Defendant 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the term "sea robbery" in the crime of marine robbery to mean the sea area where control, such as land police authority, can not be easily exercised in light of the legislative intent of the aggravated punishment. Thus, according to the above evidence, the robbery in this case is not included in this case, since there is no evidence that the act of robbery in this case took place within the port of the 4.5 meters away from the breakwater, which is surrounded by breakwater, and there is no other evidence that the act of robbery at sea, such as assault, intimidation, etc., was committed within the port of the court below and there is no other evidence that it could easily be found that the act of robbery at sea level is located in this case.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 10, the summary of the facts charged regarding the instant construction project

Defendant 10: (a) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were aware of the above facts charged by Nonindicted Party 7’s testimony at the time of the above-mentioned testimony, and Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 7’s testimony at the time of the above-mentioned testimony, and Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 8’s testimony at the time of the above-mentioned testimony by Defendant 7, and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s testimony at the time of the above-mentioned testimony, and Defendant 7 were no longer likely to have been recorded in the above-mentioned testimony by Defendant 7, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 7 were no longer likely to have been recorded in the above-mentioned testimony, and Defendant 2’s testimony at the time of the above-mentioned testimony by Nonindicted Party 8 and the above-mentioned testimony by Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 7, and Defendant 7 were no longer likely to have been recorded in the above-mentioned criminal records, and Defendant 10 were no longer likely to have been recorded in the court.

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

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)