Where one of the accomplices of robbery kills the victim in the opportunity of robbery, the other accomplices who do not conspired to do so for the purpose of murder.

In the event that one of the accomplices in robbery uses violence against the body of the victim or kills the victim by injuring the victim's body in an opportunity for robbery, it shall be deemed that there was a mutual contact with the other accomplices as to the fact that the assault or bodily injury would be caused as a means of taking the property by force on the other accomplices. Thus, even if there was no conspiracy to do so for the murder specifically, it shall be held liable as accomplice for the result of the assault or bodily injury.

Articles 30, 333, and 338 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1046 Decided September 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1293) 90Do262 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 295) decided November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 164)

A and 2 others

Defendants

Attorney B

Daegu High Court Decision 92No381 delivered on September 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by a public defender

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records and records, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or a mistake of fact by applying the law, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the fact that Defendant A committed an intentional murder of the victims while taking another's property by assault and intimidation. Thus,

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by a public defender

According to the records, it is clear that the defendant C can be admitted as evidence for each statement of witness prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, so there is no reason to discuss.

3. Judgment on Defendant C’s grounds of appeal

In the event that one of the accomplices in robbery uses violence against the body of the victim or kills the victim by injuring the victim's body, it shall be deemed that there was a mutual contact with the other accomplices as a means of forcibly taking property. As such, even if there was no conspiracy to do so for the murder, it shall be held liable as an accomplice for the result of the assault or bodily injury. The arguments are inconsistent with this Opinion that there was an error of law applying the law by failing to properly examine the judgment of the court below against which the above defendant was punished by robbery, and thus, it shall not be accepted.

4. Determination as to Defendant A and D’s grounds of appeal and the third ground of appeal by state appointed defense counsel

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the above defendant's character and conduct are extremely dangerous to protect society where the defendant's previous conviction, age, behavior, intelligence, and environment, the frequency, motive, method, circumstance, and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, relationship with victims, circumstances after the crime, and robbery committed several times, and the method of robbery and theft committed by the defendant A were extremely harsh as human beings in killing twice or victims while robbery was committed, and there is no agreement on damages between the victims' bereaved family members and their bereaved family members, and the above defendant's character and conduct are extremely dangerous. Thus, it is reasonable to permanently isolate the above defendant from society to protect society where the crime in this case was committed. The court below's determination that the above defendant C and his accomplice did not have to prevent extreme results in each of the above crimes despite prior breach of trust, and it is extremely inappropriate to recognize the defendant's punishment by comparing the above circumstances with the court below's reasoning that the defendant's act of execution in each of the above crimes was relatively less dangerous and unreasonable.

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