[1] The time limit for assault and intimidation as a requisite for the establishment of quasi-Robbery

[2] The case holding that the crime of quasi-Robbery is not established in the case where ten minutes have elapsed after the thief committed larceny and 200 meters away from the victim's house to return to the victim's house and assault the victim

[1] Quasi-Robbery is established when a thief commits an assault or intimidation for the purpose of property recovery or resistance against property in an opportunity for larceny. Therefore, the assault or intimidation is required to take place in the stage where the commission of the larceny was commenced and it is acknowledged that the criminal act has not been completed by social norms as it was immediately after the commission of the larceny or immediately after the commission of the larceny or immediately after the commission of the larceny.

[2] The case holding that in a case where the victim committed an assault on the ground that the assault was committed after the completion of the larceny under generally accepted social norms, and that the assault was not established for the reason that it was committed after the completion of the larceny, in case where the victim's 10 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 200 meters more than 200 meters away from the victim's house and the defendant was doubtful as the thief and returned to the victim's house

[1] Article 335 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 335 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 67Do334 decided Apr. 23, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 84Do1398, 84Do214 decided Sep. 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1679)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Young-ok

Seoul High Court Decision 98No1461 delivered on September 2, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Quasi-Robbery is established when a thief commits assault or intimidation with a view to property recovery or resistance, etc. As such, the assault or intimidation is required to commence the commission of larceny and take place in the stage where it is deemed that the criminal act has not been completed under social norms as it is during the process of, immediately after, or after, the commission of the larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1398, 84Do214, Sept. 11, 1984).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below, and judged that the crime of robbery cannot be established since the act of assaulting the victim was committed since the act of assaulting the victim was already completed after the thief in light of social norms, it is reasonable in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)