In case where the theft has committed violence against the victim for the purpose of evading arrest and resulting in the result of injuring the victim, even though the theft of property had been committed against the attempted crime, it should be viewed as the attempted crime of Article 337 of the Criminal Code.

In case where a thief commits violence to injure a victim for the purpose of evading arrest, and thereby causing the result of an injury to the victim, even though the theft of property had been committed against the attempted crime, it shall be considered as the attempted crime of this Article.

Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 70No515 delivered on November 5, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

80 days of detention pending after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel are examined.

In a case where a larceny committed violence to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest and resulting in an injury to the victim, even if the theft of property was committed by attempted attempted crimes, it shall be deemed a consummated crime under Article 337 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the judgment of the first instance court, which maintained the original judgment, recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning against the defendant, and was justified in applying Article 337 of the Criminal Act. Thus, there is no argument over the application of the law.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant are examined together in the second above and the grounds of appeal by the defendant.

In the case where the judgment of the first instance court sentenced the defendant a four-year sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant, the sentencing cannot be the ground of appeal, which is, the case where the sentencing of the judgment is too excessive, there are no arguments in each of the above lawsuits.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 390, 364 (4) and Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu