2014Gohap349 Quasi-Robbery

A

Maximum amount of prosecution, mobile advice (public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

June 26, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Criminal facts

At around 18:20 on March 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stolen goods at the E convenience store operated by the victim D in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the sum of the market value of KRW 7,100,00, such as one son and 4 primary nose, which were located in the relevant location; and (b) committed assault against the victim G for the purpose of evading arrest by attaching it to the above victim D and the Mar. 15, 201, which was followed by the same Gu F., (c).

Accordingly, the Defendant abused the victim G with a view to evading arrest after theft of the victim D's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A written statement of D or G preparation;

1. Preparation and reporting of each record book;

1. Extractions of damaged objects, CCTV images installed at a convenience store, and photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 335 and 333 of the Criminal Act (a point of quasi-Robbery)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant only has a fact that the defendant has failed to wear a part to the victim G with the shoulder of the victim G, and there is no assault against the victim G for the purpose of evading arrest, such as when the chest part is involved.

2. Determination

A. An assault, which is a constituent element of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Act, is sufficient to the extent that the degree of the assault under Article 333 of the same Act may suppress the other party’s resistance (in other words, the means of suppressing the resistance) in a balanced manner with the degree of assault under Article 333 of the same Act, and to the extent that it is recognized that the other party’s resistance is generally and objectively possible, and it does not necessarily require any actual suppression of the resistance, and it must be determined depending on whether the assault sufficient to suppress the defense power of the arrest in light of the specific circumstances in order to arrest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do409, Mar. 24, 1981; 85619, May 14, 1985).

나. 위 법리에 비추어 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피해자 G은 이 법정에서 "편의점 업주인 피해자 D과 어떤 할머니가 물건을 훔치고 도망가는 피고인을 붙잡기에 자신도 피고인을 붙잡았는데, 피고인이 자신에게 '니년이 뭔데 나를 붙잡냐'라고 말하면서 왼쪽 쇄골을 주먹으로 한대 때렸고, 그때 4~5미터 정도 거리에 있는 아저씨 두 분이 피고인을 제압해 주어 더 이상의 피해는 없었다, 맞고 나서 3~5초 정도 살짝 눈물이 핑 돌 정도로 아팠는데, 편의점에 가서 보니 맞은 부분이 벌겋게 되어 있었다"고 진술한 점, ② 피해자 D은 경찰에 "피고인이 자신의 가게에서 물건을 훔치고 달아나자 쫓아갔고, 피해자 G이 피고인을 막는 순간 피고인이 피해자 G의 가슴부위를 때리고 밀치는 등 도망하려 하였다"는 내용이 기재된 진술서를 작성하여 제출하였고(수사기록 7쪽), 위 진술서의 기재내용은 위 피해자 G의 진술에 부합하는 점, ③ 피고인은 ① 경찰 조사를 받을 당시 "피해자 G이 앞을 가로막자 도망가려고 하였다"고 진술하고(수사기록 19쪽), ㉡ 검찰 조사를 받을 당시 "피해자 G이 붙잡자 '니가 뭔데 나를 잡고 그래'라고 말하면서 피해자 G의 가슴을 밀쳤다"고 진술한 점(수사기록 68쪽) 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 체포를 면탈할 목적으로 피해자 G에게 폭행을 가하였고, 그 폭행이 피해자 G의 반항을 억압하는 수단으로서 일반적 · 객관적으로 가능하다고 인정되는 정도에 이르렀음을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고인 및 변호인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Robbery, General Criteria, Type 1 (General Robbery)

【Specially Floscined Punishments : simple assault and intimidations to escape arrest.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than one year and six months but not more than three years (Mitigations)

2. Determination of sentence and the reasons therefor;

(a) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months;

(b) Grounds;

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant who stolen and discovered the victim D's property, and committed assault to the victim G for the purpose of evading arrest, and the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant does not appear to have a strong attitude against the crime of this case. On January 10, 2012, in light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of six months from the Incheon District Court for night-time building intrusion larceny, with prison labor of two years from the suspension period of execution, and committed the same kind of crime at approximately two months from the expiration of the suspension period, it is inevitable to punish the defendant significantly.

However, under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant stolens property in a minor amount, and that the degree of assault against the victim G is not serious, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and other factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relation, health, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as follows.

The presiding judge, senior judge;

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Park Jong-young