Quasi-Robbery Scope of Violence Intimidation to be constituted

If the defendant was discovered to Nonindicted Party 1 to reverse the Australia of a passenger with no name in his/her name, and he/she attempted to arrest the defendant, thereby causing an injury to the victim, a third party, other than the victim of theft or a person engaged in an investigative agency, also constitutes a crime of robbery.

Articles 335 and 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (67Da978 delivered on August 1, 200)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

95 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the court of original instance shall be included in the original sentence.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is to recognize the defendant as the crime of robbery injury, but the defendant followed the family money of another person who is not the victim in this case, and the non-indicted 1 reaches knife for the purpose of evading arrest to the non-indicted 1, who is the victim, but is not the victim, so the non-indicted 1 is not a public official engaged in the investigation agency, so the crime of robbery injury is not established. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the crime of robbery injury and thereby applying the law. The second point is that the judgment of the court below is unfair if several circumstances are considered even though the crime of robbery injury is constituted, the judgment of the court below is too excessive, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the defendant only caused the injury to the non-indicted 1, who is the victim in this case, and even though he did not have stolen or attempted to steal the money remaining.

On the other hand, it is obvious in the judgment of the court below that the court below accepted the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant who was prepared to handle affairs of judicial police officers and the statement statement of non-indicted 2 and 3 of the same preparation as evidence of the court below's acknowledgement of facts, and such evidence is not admissible as evidence since the defendant did not consent to recognize the contents of the protocol in the court court or to use it as evidence. The adoption of this evidence as evidence of acknowledgement of facts of guilt is not illegal but illegal, but if the evidence adopted by the court below except the above evidence and the defendant's partial statement in the party process are all made, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the court below's determination of facts.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant was discovered to Nonindicted 1 to reverse the defendant's franchising of his name in order to arrest the defendant, and the defendant inflicted an injury on Nonindicted 1, who followed the defendant's attempt to arrest the defendant. Thus, the defendant started to commit the larceny. Thus, even if the defendant was injured for the purpose of evading the arrest of the victim of larceny and a third party other than the person who was engaged in the investigation agency, for the purpose of evading the arrest, the crime of robbery is established. Thus, the court below's application of Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act is just and there is no wrong application of the law, and therefore it is not possible to adopt a guidance on this issue by the counsel.

In addition, as long as the facts charged in this case are recognized, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor of the court below shall not be mitigated to not more than 3 years and 6 months, and the court below also considered various circumstances on the conditions of sentencing, and therefore, the counsel’s unreasonable sentencing is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed by Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 95 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the original sentence of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song-young (Presiding Judge)