[1] The degree of violence and its standard for determining the crime of quasi-Robbery

[2] The case holding that the crime of robbery is not established on the ground that the assault was not likely to suppress arrest power, in case where the thief committed larceny and the escape of the police officer went into the restaurant while driving away from the police officer, but it was no longer possible to flee, and the police officer could no longer flee, and the crime of robbery was committed on the ground that the assault did not reach the degree of suppression

[1] The assault, which is a constituent element of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Code, is sufficient to the extent that it may suppress other party's resistance in balance with the degree of assault under Article 333 of the same Act, i.e., the means to suppress an resistance, to the extent that it is generally and objectively recognized as possible. This should be determined depending on whether it is sufficient to suppress the attack power of the arrest in light of the specific circumstances in which the arrest is to be sought.

[2] The case holding that the crime of robbery is not established on the ground that the assault was not likely to suppress arrest power, in case where the thief committed larceny, which led to the thief and the escape of the police officer into the restaurant, but the escape becomes no longer possible, and the police officer could not flee, and the crime of robbery was committed on the ground that the assault did not reach the degree of suppression

[1] Articles 33, 335, and 335 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 333 and 335 of the Criminal Act

[1]

Supreme Court Decision 81Do409 Decided March 24, 1981 (Gong1981, 13856) and Supreme Court Decision 85Do619 Decided May 14, 1985 (Gong1985, 876)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim-Hy-hwan

Daegu District Court Decision 98Gohap158 delivered on May 27, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

One (No. 1) of the seized handbag (No. 1) shall be returned to the victim leaphee.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

Although the Defendant committed the thief in this case, even though he did not have committed any assault against police officers with the intent to escape arrest after committing the thief, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of quasi-Robbery. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(b) Violations of statutes;

In spite of the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of breath at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court neglected this point. The lower court erred by misapprehending the application of Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

Even if there is no suspicion, in light of the background leading up to the Defendant to the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for two years sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

The court below, based on the following facts, found that "the defendant found that the victim's leapcar was blicking in 20:15, the same-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, about 20:4 on March 8, 1998, the victim's leapcar, and the victim's leapcar, who was blicking in Handbl, passed a resolution to steal the money and valuables in front of the victim's back, and attempted to cut the above Handblon with the face-car, which was possessed in front of the victim's back, and attempted to cut the money and valuables, and did not lead to the victim's attempted to cut the money and valuables. The defendant escaped. The defendant escaped. The defendant 3 of the defendant's leapcar, who was working in the middle-gu police station where the victim was working in the control of illegal stopping at the wife, and the leaples and the leaplesn of the police station belonging to the defendant, attempted to arrest the defendant, and applied the defendant 3 of the above le 3 of the defendant."

The assault, which is a constituent element of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Code, is sufficient to the extent that it may suppress the other party's resistance (in other words, a means to suppress an resistance) in balance with the degree of assault under Article 333 of the same Act, and to the extent that it is recognized objectively possible. This should be determined depending on whether it is sufficient to suppress arrest's attack in light of the specific circumstances to arrest.

According to the evidence of the court below, since four police officers, including No. 1 and Hawa, who were found to have been thief by the defendant, when the defendant was found to have been thief by the victim and fled, were trackingd by four police officers, including No. 1 and Hawa, who were dispatched to the victim after receiving a report from the victim, and were able to see that the above 4 police officers were frighted into the above grari, and the above glaf and Hawawa enter the following: they were in a simple place in order to prevent their access; they were frightd by the mixed glaf; they were arrested by the wind that combines Hawa, and they did not display the above glaf by the No. 1 and Hawa; however, according to the above facts, the above graf cannot be seen to have been frightd by the defendant's testimony to the extent that they could no longer have been frightd by the police officers.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of quasi-Robbery, or by erroneous application of Article 335 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The gist of the evidence and the facts charged by the defendant who is admitted as a member of the party is that of the judgment of the court below, except that the last part of the criminal facts of the court below is "the attempted crime, the escape of which is, the escape of which is, the transportation of the middle police station and the police station belonging to the middle police station who has been engaged in the crackdown on illegal parking and stopping at the nearby location, and the escape of which is reported by the victim, and the escape of which is about to arrest the defendant, and the person in the above scarri and the lower scarri who has been stationed into the above scarri for the purpose of evading arrest, and used violence against him" is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

applicable provisions

1. Relevant Articles and choice of punishment;

Articles 342 and 329 (Selection of Imprisonment)

2. Calculation of the number of detention days before a judgment is rendered: Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

3. Return: Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

Although the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, as well as part of the Defendant’s statement in this court that he did not believe by

Parts of innocence

The summary of the facts charged against the defendant is as follows: "The defendant puts the suspect in Round and Haak-ho, who is in the lotia for the purpose of evading arrest after committing the larceny of this case, and assaults them." As seen above, this constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, but it constitutes a case where there is no disadvantage to the defense of the above defendant, and the party member is found guilty of attempted larceny which is in a legal landscape agreement without any modification of the indictment, and thus, it shall not be sentenced to innocence in the text. It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-type Kim