The number of crimes committed by a person who steals the property owned by the same victim on a single-time basis, when the last crime was discovered, causing bodily injury to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest.

On February 16, 1981, 00: around 30, when the defendant shouldered the window glass of the above female room 9, which is the part of the victim's accommodation located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, and stolen 2,000 won and 1 fingers, etc. which are the victim's ownership, and continuously 5 minutes later, it stolen 7,160 won and 7,160 won of the above victim's money in collaboration with the non-indicted 35 at around 35 minutes, and when the defendant was discovered of the above victim, the above victim's left part of the left part of the victim's escape for the purpose of evading arrest, the crime of injury by robbery is established by universal title.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court (81 Gohap127)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

One hundred days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant was found to be in the state that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions by taking a large amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but the court below was only limited, and even if it was not so, the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too inappropriate. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is without sufficient evidence to find the facts charged in this case, and the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the judgment, and erred in application of law, and affected the judgment. Further, even though the defendant was in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions by taking a large amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, the court below neglected it, and even if it was not so, the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too inappropriate.

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant at the time of original adjudication by comparing the records, and there is no reason to deem that the court below erred in its fact-finding due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and even considering the records of the case, it is not recognized that the defendant was in the mental or weak condition at the time of this case.

Before determining on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below acknowledged on February 16, 1981: around 30: around 30, the defendant's act of taking advantage of the window glass of the above victim's room 9 room, shouldering the window glass of the above victim's room, 2,000 won and 1 fingers, etc., which are the victim's 5 minutes in combination with the above victim's around 35:0,00 on the day on which 7,160 won were stolen; and as the above victim was discovered, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above victim's loss was inflicted on the left side of the above victim's gate with a glass view to evading the arrest, and each of the above defendants committed a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the defendant's act of taking advantage of the two-mentioned concurrent crimes as provided for in the robbery crime of robbery.

However, the case of the defendant is merely one crime of injury by robbery, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes concurrent crimes as stipulated in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below's application of the law cannot be ruled to have influenced the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided after pleading.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

In light of the law, the court below held that the defendant's judgment falls under Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act, including the defendant's judgment in general, since the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment, and the defendant did not commit the crime of this case and the victim did not take a heavy measure, and there are reasonable grounds for taking into account the circumstances such as the defendant's mistake in depth and the victim took a heavy measure, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to three years and six months within the term of punishment, and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 110 days from the number of detention days prior to the decision of the court below pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act and shall be included in the above punishment.

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)