A thief who inflicts an injury upon another person for the purpose of evading arrest and the crime of injury by robbery;

In the crime of robbery as stipulated in Article 337 of the Criminal Act, the term "Robbery" means the crime of robbery which includes the quasi-Robbery as stipulated in Article 335 of the same Act, and in case where a thief threatens another person to assault for the purpose of evading arrest, and thereby the crime of robbery is also constituted

Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Do352 delivered on September 30, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 4146 delivered on September 30, 1964; Decision 337(5)1349 delivered on November 24, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 383Da1349 delivered on November 24, 1964)

A

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (78 Gohap147)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

100 days out of the number of days of confinement before the sentence is rendered shall be included in the sentence of the original judgment.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant was that at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant did not have any intention to steal the vehicle of this case or robbery. The court below's finding the defendant guilty as to the crime of robbery was erroneous by mistake of facts or by law, and the second point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that the amount of punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

First of all, in light of the records, the facts charged in this case by the defendant, which the court below adopted by lawfully examining the evidence, can be recognized, and robbery in the crime of robbery under Article 337 of the Criminal Act includes quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the same Act. Thus, the defendant's appeal pointing this out is without merit, and the above ground for appeal pointing this out is without merit, since it is not appropriate to determine the sentence imposed by the court below, and it is not reasonable to accept all the grounds for appeal pointing this out. Then, examining in detail various circumstances such as the motive, means, result, degree of damage, age, character and conduct of the defendant, environment, criminal record, circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case as to the second ground for appeal, and it is not reasonable to determine the sentence imposed by the court below as to the defendant, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant, since it is inappropriate to determine the sentence imposed by the court below as to the defendant and it is not reasonable to do so.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and according to Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 100 days out of the number of days of confinement prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-sung only