2014Gohap901 A. Injury by robbery (the name of a crime recognized: Special robbery)

(b) Special robbery;

1. Ma○○ (94 - 1), non-permanent,

2. Kim○-○ (94 - 1), and non-permanent

E. B. L.D. (Courtrooms), E. B. B., E. H. and Red P. (Courtrooms)

Attorney Park Jong-young (Korean National Assembly on behalf of all the defendants)

Attorney Park Young-young (National Ship for all of the Defendant)

May 7, 2015

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants is suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Probation and community service for 80 hours shall be ordered to the defendants.

Criminal History Office

The Defendants: (a) committed on November 15, 2014, the crime of assaulting the victims under the influence of alcohol at the night due to the lack of entertainment expenses; (b) fluencing them to force their resistance; and (c) fluencing them to prepare entertainment expenses by cutting away their wallets, etc. from them; and (d) committed on the basis of November 15, 201

On November 15, 2014, 05: around 14, 2014, the Defendants got off the way of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” in the south-gu Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon. Defendant Kim○, by walking a victim’s name or unclaimed box, taken off the victim’s face, and Defendant Ma○○ took over the victim’s face, by suppressing the victim’s resistance from the victim’s resistance, and took off the victim’s 30,000 won in cash.

2. The crime committed on November 23, 2014;

A. The Defendants, according to the aforementioned public offering, are the end of the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City around 49, around November 23, 2014.

In this way, from the perspective of the ‘○○ Women' Middle School in this ○○○○○○, the following methods were taken by force: (a) the unsatisfying one unsatisfy in the market price from the deceased person’s name, (b) one cellular phone, (c) one tea, and (d) four cigarettes.

B. The Defendants: around 05 on November 23, 2014: (a) around 00, at the first floor toilet of the building “○○○○○○○○” located in the Namdong-gu Incheon, Seoul, in line with the foregoing public offering, reported the network by using the toilet hand to prevent the victim from leaving the toilet in front of the toilet; (b) Defendant ○○, by walking the upper part of the body part of the victim Kim Jong-dong, Kim-dong, Seoul (the age of 44 years); (c) Defendant 100,000 won (the age of 44 years); and (d) Defendant ○○ continued to take part of the head of the victim her drinking. Defendant 1,00,000 won (the age of 10,000 won); and (d) Defendant ○○, who took part of the toilet into the toilet and took part of the body part of the victim her to take part in the market price from the victim 100,000 won (the market price).

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly taken the victims' property by taking the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Legal statement of Kim Ho-ri, Kim Young-ri;

1. Police seizure records and the list of seizures;

1. CCTV photographs, peripheral CCTV photographs, CCTV-cap photographs, CCTV video CDs;

1. A report on investigation (a CCTV investigation related to ascertaining any such crime);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Defendants: Articles 334(2), 333, 334(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act.

x)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Trust Crimes)

Aggravated increase in concurrent crimes by concurrent crimes prescribed in the Special Robbery of Victims Kim-won

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (for the following reasons, the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

(iii)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Consideration of Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation)

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendants: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under the Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months from June to June 22 months; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

(a) Class I crime (Crimes on November 15, 2014);

[Scope of Recommendation Form 2 (Special Robbery)

[Special Convicted Persons] Self-denunciation

(b) Second offense (an offense against a person who was unable to obtain the victim's name on November 23, 2014);

[Scope of Recommendation Form] General Criteria Form 2 (Special Robbery)

[Special Convicted Persons] Self-denunciation

(c) Class 3 crime (Crimes in relation to Self-Governing Si/Gun/Gu on November 23, 2014).

[Scope of Recommendation Form 2 (Special Robbery)

【Special Mitigation Party】 Ad hoc Inspector

(d) the scope of final recommendations;

From June to April of 2 years and 7 years and 7 months of imprisonment [the maximum limit of crimes 1) + the maximum limit of crimes 1/2 (2 years) + 3

1/3 (one year and April)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months and three years of a stay of execution; and

The crime of this case is not likely to be committed by the Defendants by taking property forcibly against the victims under the influence of alcohol. Considering the fear of the victims at the time of committing the crime, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant 2.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent manner in order to raise the living expenses of Marara to raise the living expenses of 20 years of age who have yet to work with social experience. The Defendants did not have any criminal record, and all parts relating to the special robbery among their crimes are deadly divided. In particular, during the investigation process, the Defendants revealed and cooperate in the investigation by themselves with respect to the remaining crimes other than those discovered by the report of the victim Kim Young-gu in Seoul Special Self-Governing Province. Moreover, the Defendants did not want to punish the victims. Of the instant crimes, the Defendants did not want to have agreed upon the victims’ identity because they could not grasp the victims’ identity and did not reach an agreement.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

In the process of committing a special robbery, such as the statement in Paragraph (b) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the Defendants, the Defendants sent approximately two weeks back to the victim with a vegetable electric wall in need of treatment.

2. Determination

In the crime of robbery injury means that the physical condition of a victim is changed seriously to his/her health condition, and the occurrence of a disturbance to his/her daily life is caused. If the body condition of the victim is extremely minor and there is no need for treatment, and even if the victim’s daily life is not treated, and if the case can be naturally cured following the lapse of the time, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s physical condition was changed to the injured person’s health or that his/her living function was hindered, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the injury is caused to the crime of robbery (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003, etc.).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following circumstances were acknowledged. ① After the occurrence of the instant case, the victim Kim Jong-won stated that the victim was forced to assault and take cash, etc. at the time of the investigation by the police, and that the victim was forced to undergo the examination (the victim’s written statement of statement by the police was stated as “the victim’s objection” as to the instant case). ② The victim was investigated by the police at the time when several times have not passed since the instant case occurred, and was driven by driving directly at the distance requiring 40 minutes. ③ The victim was diagnosed at the hospital after the date of this case’s occurrence, and the victim was not required to undergo the examination, such as X Ra, and the victim was not required to undergo the examination at the hospital, and the victim was not required to undergo the examination, and the victim was not required to undergo the examination at the hospital, and the victim was not allowed to undergo the examination at the time of the above visit. ④ The victim was not allowed to undergo the examination at the hospital.

In full view of the above circumstances, etc., it is true that the above victim saw a little degree of pain on the part corresponding to the defendant's assault. However, this is judged to be easy to recover nature even if the victim did not receive any specific treatment, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that the above victim's health condition was significantly changed or that there was an obstacle to the living function of the victim, and there is no other evidence to determine the person.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as the court found the above victim guilty of a special robbery, which is related to the crime, the jury verdict and sentencing opinion that do not separately sentence the defendant

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

A. Paragraph (1) of the facts charged: The jury's opinion on guilt of only nine full-time jurors

(b) Facts charged No. 2: The injury by robbery - The opinion of innocence of nine full-time jurors.

Special robbery - The jury's guilty of only nine jurors

2. Opinions on sentencing

- Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months, three years of suspension of execution; nine persons;

For more than one reason, this case against the defendant is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to his wishes.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the judge

판사 김샛별

Judges Shin Sung-sung