The crime of injury by robbery is not necessarily required to achieve the purpose of taking property rights.

The crime of injury by robbery is not necessarily required to achieve the purpose of taking property.

Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1

Kim Won-won

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No415 delivered on January 21, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68No415 delivered on January 21, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

50 days, out of the days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

However, in order to establish the crime of robbery, the robbery does not necessarily require that the purpose of the taking of property and the robbery reaches the strength. Thus, even if the defendant committed an attempted robbery in this case, the crime of robbery shall be established as long as the victim inflicted an injury like one inquiry at the time of the robbery during the process of robbery. In this case where imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years is sentenced, the argument that the amount of punishment in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the original judgment is unreasonable does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. Under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 50 days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)