2017Gohap542 Injury by robbery

A

Consolidated (prosecution) and semi-permanent (public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

August 11, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the defendant to be put on probation.

One stick for delivery which has been seized (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

At around 05:06 on April 8, 2017, when the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to decentralization, the defendant, at the D convenience store located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, requested the victim E (the 19 years old), who is the employee of the above convenience store, to grant DNA tobacco to the victim E (the 19 years old), and refused to demand and reject the price of KRW 12,00,00, the victim would be subject to intimidation. The police would make a fright of threat. The fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the 12,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Plastic photographs for mountain use, CCTV video recording materials, DNA convenience stores, and internal photographs;

1. Investigation report (CCTV investigation);

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

The defendant asserts to the effect that he was at the convenience store to purchase tobacco without money, and only when he was at the time of the victim, and that he did not intend to take the tobacco from the victim.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., CCTV video (Investigation Record 37 pages), the defendant stated that "The defendant's act of not having paid tobacco to the victim's convenience room calculation team, such as the victim's head and loss, can be confirmed that continuously putting the victim's tobacco out (2017040-01: 01:30 out of 4mp 10173, 2017) and stated that "the defendant tried to cut tobacco without any tobacco value" in the police station (26 pages of the Investigation Record), and that "the defendant's intent was merely a time to cut tobacco to the victim," and that "the defendant's act of not having paid tobacco to the victim's head and loss, etc., caused the victim to put him out of tobacco," and that "the defendant's motive and the defendant's motive to put him out of tobacco as the defendant's act of not being able to be considered as the defendant's act of refusing the payment of tobacco."

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 337 of the Criminal Act, Selection of limited imprisonment

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 10(2) and (1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (person with mental disability)

[3] The defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was hospitalized or provided with pain treatment from August 8, 2014 to February 7, 2017 (Evidence 1 to 3 of the submission of counsel). ② The defendant shows violent tendency, such as assaulting his parents upon his mother's birth at the time of committing the crime. At the time of the crime, the defendant's mother's mother's birth did not go to the convenience store at ordinary level because of the lack of money, and thus, the defendant could not live in tobacco as a result of the lack of capacity to do so, and the defendant did not appear to have a tobacco again at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant did not appear to have his own ability to do so and committed the crime for 10 minutes of tobacco again, and the defendant did not appear to have a tobacco again after being hospitalized or discharged until 20 minutes of tobacco again, and the defendant did not appear to have his own ability to do so (3).

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Probation;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for one year and nine months - July 7 months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (General Robbery) where the result of an injury to a robbery has occurred.

[Special Escopic Persons] Where the result of an injury occurred, but the basic crime is committed in attempted crimes, mental or physical disability (not responsible for the principal), non-conformity with punishment (excluding mitigation elements)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Special Mitigation Zone, one year to four years of imprisonment

3. The scope of revised recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and nine months - four years (the lowest limit of the applicable sentences in the law is higher than the lowest limit of the recommended sentences, and therefore the minimum limit of the applicable sentences in the law shall prevail).

4. Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment and three years of a stay of execution; and

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the part of convenience stores to change tobacco, but the victim, who is an employee of convenience stores, refused the Defendant’s demand while refusing the Defendant’s demand. The act of this case was committed by assaulting to force the withdrawal of tobacco and causing bodily injury to cerebrum in need of treatment for about 10 days to the victim. The crime was committed as bad. The victim suffered a large physical pain and mental shock.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime, there are conditions that may be considered in light of the background of the crime, the fact that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime, the fact that the defendant, the first offender, was against his mistake, the fact that the crime of robbery was not committed, and the injury suffered by the victim was not serious, the defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim and the victim did not want the punishment, and the fact that the defendant's family members actively protect and treat the defendant, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account other factors favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relationship

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Jin-hun

Judges Park Jong-chul