201Gohap251 Injury by robbery

(781128 - 1), free of office

Residential old-si -

Permanent Residence

Maximum, Magran,

Attorney Lee Jin-young, Lee Jin-young (Korean National Assembly Line)

September 26, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Facts of crime

On July 26, 2011, 04: around 00, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol on the front side of the Citti Bank located in Gyeonggi-si 404, Gidong 200, and discovered the victim’s gambling and MaMaMaMa (the age of 43) and then taken off the victim’s 890,000 won mobile phone at the market price of the victim’s her hand when she was faced with the math of the above victim’s math of the math of the math, and then did not take off the victim’s face, side, side part of the math of the victim’s 8.90,00 won, and did not take off the victim’s face, side, side, etc., which is the victim’s possession, and cut off one color-shield on the part of the treatment days.

Accordingly, the defendant took the property of the victim and inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. A witness Membling Memor Memor's legal statement

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendant in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect;

1. Statement of each police statement about Park MaMaMa MaMaMa

1. Influence photographs, investigation reports (influences on failure to attach a medical certificate);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 337 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The defendant found the victim who was used under the influence of alcohol and brought the victim Gap away from the victim's side, while there was a fact that he took the galthoopty jus2 cellular phone from the victim's galths. However, there was no violence and injury as stated in the facts charged, and the upper part suffered by the victim does not constitute the injury of robbery.

2. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On July 26, 201, the day of the instant crime, the victim drinked a mixed alcoholic beverage on July 26, 201, the day of the instant crime. Lambling, another customer who was seated next to the instant crime, * like * Hading a drinking together while moving to an entertainment drinking house located next to the instant case, and drinking alcohol at a taxi, getting out of an entertainment drinking house, getting out of a mixed taxi, and getting out of the taxi. On the same day, around 04: 00, the instant crime was committed among those who were trying to get a taxi on the front side of the Sinri-dong Sindong 404.

2) The victim was assaulted by the victim at the police station in P.M. on the day of the instant crime.

In order to attract the defendant, the case was sent a text message to the owner of the cell phone by using the serial number of the smartphone which was forcibly taken to attract the defendant. "....." The text message sent to the purport that "....."

3) The Defendant confirmed the foregoing text message and contacted the victim who wants to receive a honorarium with the victim to return the icephone. On July 28, 201, the Defendant and the victim met with the location designated on July 28, 201. In this case, the police officer with whom the victim was on behalf of the victim arrested the Defendant.

(b) Examining evidence relations;

As evidence of the facts charged in this case, the prosecution presented as evidence the victim's witness Park MaMa, each statement at the law of MaMa-gu and investigation agency, and the defendant's investigation agency's statement to the effect that 'the defendant left the victim's wall and smartphone from the victim' in the same date and time as the facts charged, '.' The defendant submitted the victim's photo of the part concerning the bodily injury, the seizure report of the damaged article, the seized article photograph, and the scene photograph of the crime.

On the other hand, the Defendant, at the time and place specified in the facts charged of this case, acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that he did not assault and injure the victim, but denied the facts charged of this case by assaulting the victim. As such, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, is first aware of the facts charged

With respect to whether there is assault against the victim due to the intention of forcibly taking lectures, the statement of the victim in the court and the investigative agency is the only direct evidence.

(c) The credibility of a victim's statement;

1) The statements made by the victim in this legal and investigative agency are as follows.

① First of all, on July 26, 201, the date of the instant crime, the victim reported to the police station at the P.M. on July 26, 201, that he/she was assaulted by inundation and smartphones. The fact that he/she reported to the effect that he/she was aware of the assault and smartphones.

② On July 28, 2011, immediately after the arrest of the Defendant on the part of the police, the injured party intending to get a taxi under the influence of alcohol, and the injured party intending to take the cab from her head at his/her own head. The injured party stated to the effect that he/she would not take the her head and take the stoves depending on the offender stove the stoves. The injured party s to the effect that he/she saw the victim’s face, face and side stoves, cut off the left part, cut back his/her smartphone.”

③ In the two-time investigation into the police and the examination of the confrontation between the Defendant and the victim, the victim, as seen above, took the head from the offender, kiddds down the body, and kidds down the knife by exposing the hand in order to keep the hand away from the possession. The victim stated that he seriously assaulted the offender.

④ The victim, in the course of the investigation into confrontation with the defendant in the prosecutor’s office, 'the defendant got her hand to her hand, and the defendant tried to escape, thereby pointing out his hand, and assaulting her face by spreading it. The victim again her face through a series of processes when she was faced with his her head to her face, and there was no other way to do so at that time. The victim stated that 'the victim was a criminal.' The witness stated that this court also stated the same contents as the investigative agency.

2) As such, the victim tried to take the head of the victim from the investigative agency to this court, and take the victim’s cellphones and smartphones from the victim, and the victim took the clothes of the offender in order to prevent him/her from taking them away, but the offender gets out of the victim and taken away the above things. "The victim gets out of the victim and escaped from the victim." The victim statements a relatively concrete and consistent content about the situation at the time of the crime.

3) On the other hand, in the police investigation, the defendant made a statement that "the victim was locked by the victim," and then during the investigation of the police twice, "the victim made several statements to the defendant that "the victim had possession of goods)", and the defendant made a scam and returned back to the victim as the victim got out of the scam and smartphones. The victim made a statement that "the fact that the victim scams of the defendant's clothes is unscamless." In the police investigation, the victim made the statement that "the victim scams the defendant's body, and scam scams the defendant's body." The victim scam scam, and the prosecutor made a statement that "the victim took the defendant's arms and scams several times and brought about many smartphones to the defendant's body." In the process of investigation, the defendant made a statement that "the victim and the defendant got out of the defendant's cell."

4) The case holding that the defendant and the victim stated that there was no other person at the time of the crime of this case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: ① at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant and the victim stated that there was no other person during the punishment of the defendant and the victim; ② the victim stated that the police had been in custody of the clothes of the test color system; ③ the defendant also stated that he was in the prosecutor's office that he had been in contact with the victim at the time of the crime of this case; ③ the victim she was getting out of the taxi after the crime of this case, and the victim was in assaulted by a third party; ④ The victim's statement about the situation that the victim was in this case from the moment when the victim was faced with the arm's length price from the defendant to the time when the defendant escaped, it is relatively consistent with the victim's statement about the situation that the victim was in contact with the victim, but it is sufficiently consistent with the circumstances that the victim was found to have been in the situation before and after the crime of this case.

D. Whether the crime of injury by robbery constitutes an injury

1) In the crime of robbery, injury refers to a change of the victim’s physical health condition and interference with his/her living function. Thus, even if the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and does not receive treatment, it cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery because it is difficult to view the injured party’s physical health condition as the injured party’s condition was changed or that the injured party may naturally recover from his/her daily life following the lapse of time, and it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical condition was changed or that his/her living function was hindered (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.). In this case, the circumstance in which the injured party received a separate medical treatment at a hospital or submitted a written diagnosis of injury does not appear.

2) However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) sold the part of the victim’s body to a fluorous object; (b) the victim’s body could not be properly divided; (c) the victim could no longer drive the Defendant due to the Defendant’s appearance; and (d) the victim’s body was considerably left in a fluort with a diameter of 5cm in diameter; and (e) the victim did not report the body other than the fluor in the fluoral body in the fluoral body and reported the fluoral body in the fluoral body immediately after the crime, without reporting the fluoring body, and (d) the victim fluoring the fluoral body in this court, and caused a fluoral control due to the symptoms caused by the instant crime; and (e) the victim could not be deemed to have suffered a serious injury due to a fluoral disorder in this case’s daily life, and there is sufficient reason to recognize that the injury was an injury caused by a short-term.

E. Conclusion

Therefore, the charges of this case are fully convicted by the evidence presented by the prosecutor's office, such as the statement at the court and investigation agency of Membling Memical Memical Memical Memical Memical Memical Memical Memical Memical Memicals

Reasons for sentencing

The crime of this case is likely to be dangerous and highly poor because the defendant identified the victim who was under the influence of being mixed with the new wall as the object of the crime, and assaulted the victim and forcibly taken possessions, thereby causing the victim's injury.

The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines shall be two years of imprisonment with prison labor - four years [where the result of robbery, injury is generated, Type 1 (General Robbery), mitigated area], or the statutory penalty for the crime of injury by robbery is not less than seven years in the case of imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant is found guilty on the grounds that there are no specific legal mitigation grounds other than discretionary mitigation grounds, so long as the facts charged are found guilty on the grounds as shown below, even if a discretionary reduction is made for the following reasons, a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months is inevitable.

However, it shall be considered as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the defendant paid a certain amount to the victim and received a letter from the victim, that the degree of injury is not significant, that the defendant has a previous record and no previous record other than a fine, that the amount of damage is not significant, and that the damaged goods have been returned to the victim, etc. In addition, all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, family relationship, economic situation, etc., shall be set forth in the same sentence as the order.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion;

1. Do verdict;

Four jurors: Defendant

Three jurors: Not guilty;

2. Sentencing Opinion

Four jurys guilty: Imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months;

Judges Park Jae-sik

Judges boarding and leaving the court

Judges Cho Jae-dae