beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year, each of the defendants B.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the grounds of appeal by Defendant A by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the Defendants did not share the conduct of robbery at a time and place in a cooperative relationship at the scene of the crime, there was a assertion that the lower court found the Defendants guilty of special robbery, the lower court held that assault and intimidation by the Defendants did not reach the degree of assault and intimidation in the crime of robbery, and the lower court found the Defendants guilty only for the crime of assault and intimidation which the prosecutor indicted in advance. Thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal by Defendant A is not separately determined.
Even though the Defendants threatened the police of the Philippines to pay money and valuables in return for release after the Defendants had led victims by the police of the Philippines, it is unreasonable to find the Defendants guilty of special robbery by misapprehending the legal principles on the degree of assault and intimidation against the other party’s resistance or the degree of failing to resist, even though it is difficult to see that the Defendants committed assault and intimidation to the extent that the other party’s resistance or to have the other party unable to resist.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of two years and six months, and Defendant B: imprisonment of three years) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the name of the crime was examined as "public conflicts", the applicable provisions of law were changed to "the purpose of Article 350 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act," and the facts charged No. 17 "after threatening the police officer to make a speech in the purport and make him not to make a resistance," and the facts charged No. 20 and less than 20 shall read as "the Defendants, together, received the police officer from the victims about KRW 40,00, US dollars 3,100 ($4,500,000)."