If a person who has been requested to recover credit proceeds from credit goods commits assault and intimidation during the collection process, the crime of robbery shall be committed.

Even if a creditor is requested to recover the credit-price claim against the debtor, so long as the debtor acquires property and property benefits by assault and intimidation to the extent that it may suppress the debtor's resistance, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of right, and there is no obstacle to the establishment of the robbery and injury crime.

Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Do677 delivered on February 15, 1962 (Gong1985, 1081) 84Do2083 Delivered on June 25, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 95No1686 delivered on September 19, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. 75 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, each of the crimes of this case can be fully recognized by the defendant, and the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence. There is no reason to discuss.

Next, the defendant's grounds for appeal are examined.

Even if the defendant was requested by the non-indicted 1 to recover the credit payment claim against the non-indicted 2 who is the victim, so long as the defendant acquired property and property gains by assault and intimidation to the extent that it is to suppress the victim's resistance, this cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of rights, and it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of robbery (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma677 delivered on February 15, 1962). Thus, the judgment of the court below that the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of robbery due to a serious mistake of facts, as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)