A. Admissibility of evidence of the co-defendant's statement

(b) the meaning of sharing the act of practice, which is the objective requirement of joint crimes;

(c) The time to commence the commission of a special robbery, in which robbery takes place by intrusion upon residence at night; and where a thief or robbery offender assaults a police officer for the purpose of evading arrest, the frequency of the robbery or robbery and the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties;

(d) The case holding that the attempted robbery and rape lack the arbitrity, which is a requirement for a suspended crime;

A. The confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include the statement of the co-defendant, who is an accomplice, and the statement of the co-defendant is admissible as independent evidence because the defendant's right to cross-examine is guaranteed.

B. A joint crime is a subjective element, which requires the sharing of the act at the site as an objective element, other than a public contest, but such sharing of the act is not necessarily the same, but it is sufficient to view that there is a mutual cooperative relationship between time and place, at the same time and at the same time.

C. The crime of robbery at night under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act is a combination of residential intrusion and robbery, and it is prior to the temporary intrusion, and thus, it shall be deemed that the principal crime is commenced at the time of the intrusion. In the crime of robbery with lethal weapons under Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to view that the robbery is commenced at the time of the intrusion upon residence if the robbery is conducted at night.

D. The crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties when a thief intimidations a police officer for the purpose of evading arrest. The crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties constitute the crime of robbery and the crime of intimidation. However, the crime of robbery and obstruction of the performance of official duties are in a concurrent relationship with the police officer for the purpose of evading arrest.

E. In the course of robbery by Defendant A, B, and C while committing robbery, Defendant A, and B were led to a small room in which they were forced to rape, and the victim was forced to leave panty, and did not bring about the intent on the wind that the victim had been forced to leave panty, and the panty of the part of the victim was faced, the commission of rape was commenced so long as they attempted to rape the victim who had already been promulgated during the course of robbery, and the discontinuance of sexual intercourse by the defendants was caused by the fact that there was an obstacle to the bodily rape of the victim, not just because the victim was considered to be the victim, but it was merely a suspension of the crime due to external circumstances that interfered with the conduct of rape in general experience, and thus, lack of arbitraryness, which is the requirement for the suspension crime.

A. Article 310(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 334(c) of the Criminal Act; Article 25 of the Criminal Act; Articles 37, 40, 136, and 335(e) of the Criminal Act; Articles 26, 342, and 339 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do691 delivered on June 25, 1985 (Gong1985,108) 85Do951 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985,1151) 87Do973 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987,1358) (Gong1987 delivered on September 13, 1988) 88Do837 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,638), Supreme Court Decision 86Do843 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong106, 106) 198Do139639 delivered on September 13, 1986 (Gong1986, 106), 203Do19739 delivered on September 16, 1986)

A and 2 others

Attorney B and 2 others

Busan High Court Decision 91No1094, 91No1528 delivered on April 2, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and C, and each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant D and Attorneys B and E (Private Ship) are examined as well.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below based on the records, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the original trial, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles, in the process of fact-finding of the court below.

The confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include the statement made by the co-defendant as an accomplice, and it is a consistent view that the defendant's right to cross-examination is guaranteed with respect to the statement made by the co-defendant, and it has independent admissibility of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do951, Mar. 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Do691, Jun. 25, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 87Do973, Jul. 7, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Do973, Jul. 7, 1987). It is not erroneous that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fact that the defendant

In addition, according to the records, the defendants only recognize the establishment of each suspect's interrogation protocol and discretion of judicial police officer in the process of examination of evidence in the first instance trial, and there is no reason to suspect that the defendants' statements in the investigation agency were made by coercion, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the theory of lawsuit that other defendants' statements in the defendant's crime A are made by the prosecutor's adviser and intimidation is merely a non-founded argument in the records.

All arguments are without merit.

2. We examine Defendant A’s attorney B and E’s ground of appeal No. 2

A joint crime is a subjective requirement in addition to a public contest, which requires the sharing of the act at the site as an objective requirement, but it is sufficient to view that there is a mutual cooperative relationship between time and place, not only refers to the sharing of the act at the same time and at the same time by specifying the act of execution at the same place.

According to the facts set forth in 1-A (1) of the original adjudication, among the Defendants, Defendant C entered the gate beyond the victim’s house and opened the gate and let Defendant A and F enter the gate, and Defendant F and C respectively opened the dracker door and opened two knife knife in the place where the dracks all the Defendants entered the knife with the knife and knife, followed the knife and knife the knife with the knife, followed the knife of the knife and knife, and led the precious metal and cash. Thus, even if Defendant A did not directly open a door or knife with the knife as of the above original adjudication, it is deemed that

There is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the integration of reasons and robbery.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4.

Since the crime of robbery at night under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Code is a combination of residential intrusion and robbery, it is prior to the temporary intrusion, and therefore, it is deemed that the crime of robbery at night is commenced at the time of the intrusion, and even in the crime of joint robbery with lethal weapons as prescribed in paragraph (2) of the same Article, if the robbery is committed by intrusion upon residence at night, it is reasonable to view that the crime of robbery is commenced at the time of the intrusion upon residence.

According to 1-A (3) facts at the time of the original adjudication, with the intent of the defendants to forcibly take property by making the house of the victim G at night, Defendant C entered through the entrance door, and Defendant F opened the kitchen impulse, and it did not bring about the intent of the defendant F by knowing that the victim’s kitchen was detected in vain in the victim’s vain. At night, the facts of 1-B (1) at the time of original adjudication, when the defendants came to come to the victim’s house at night, the defendant C entered the door and opened the door in the house, and the remaining Defendants did not come to the way of the victim’s house by taking the knife from the kitchen and leaving the house, so long as the defendants invaded the residence above at night, it should be an attempted crime, and the defendant’s behavior together with the defendant’s behavior at the scene should be considered as an attempted crime, and there is no further error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the charge of special robbery or robbery. Therefore, the judgment below is justified.

4. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 5.

When a thief commits violence against a police officer for the purpose of evading arrest, the crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties constitute the crime of robbery and the crime of intimidation against a police officer. However, while the robbery commits violence against a police officer for the purpose of evading arrest, the crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of official duties are in substantive concurrence with each other and do not conflict with each other.

The opposite theory is groundless as an independent opinion.

5. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 6.

According to the facts of 2-B at the time of the judgment of the court below, while the defendants were engaged in robbery, the defendants C and A had the victim I, who forced the victim I to rape, and had the victim off panty, and had the panty, and did not carry out that intent. As long as the victim who had already been promulgated during the robbery had attempted to rape as above, it shall be deemed that the crime of rape was commenced. In light of the contents of related evidence, including the victim's statement, the suspension of sexual intercourse between the defendants is not considered to be the victim, but it would hinder the rape under the physical conditions of the victim. Thus, this is because it is not merely a suspension of the crime due to external circumstances that interfered with the conduct of rape under ordinary experience, and it is not a lack of the person who is the requirement for the crime of suspension.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that did not apply the reduction and exemption provision for the crime is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

6. The grounds of appeal No. 7, Defendant F’s grounds of appeal, Defendant F’s grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing among the remaining Defendants’ grounds of appeal, and Defendant D’s counsel’s grounds of appeal No. 2.

Examining the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the Defendants, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is deemed appropriate, and there is no significant reason to recognize that the amount of the punishment is extremely unfair. Therefore, each argument about this issue is without merit.

7. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)