logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 2. 22. 선고 82도3103, 82감도666 판결
[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반·강도치상·특수강도·보호감호][집31(1)형,207;공1983.4.15.(702),628]
Main Issues

In the case of arranging only the conspiracy of the crime of special robbery and the disposal of the stolen, the joint principal of the special robbery

Summary of Judgment

As long as the crime of special robbery is attempted, even if the accomplice did not participate in the commission of the crime, and only mediated the disposal of the stolen which he took place, he/she shall be a joint principal offender of special robbery. Therefore, he/she shall not be deemed to be a joint principal offender of special robbery.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 30 and 334 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant 1

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Defendant and Defendant 2 et al.

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant (1) and Defendant and Defendant and Appellants (2), (3)

Defense Counsel

Attorney Park Jong-chul

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 82No2534, 82No719 delivered on November 23, 1982

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 45 days each to be included in the imprisonment of the Defendants.

Reasons

Defendant 1 and 2, 3 and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining the evidence in comparison with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of each crime of special robbery in relation to the defendant and the respondent 2 and 3 who are concurrently the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the judgment of the court of first instance, and as long as the defendant and the respondent 2 conspired to commit a special robbery as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, even if the defendant and the respondent 2 did not participate in the commission of the crime and arranged the disposition of stolen articles taken by the rest of the defendants, the defendant and the respondent 2 shall not be a joint principal offender of special robbery, so they shall not be a percentage of the crime of stolen articles.

In this case where there was no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles of the co-principal as a matter of course of the determination of the court below, and the reason attributable to the misconception of facts by denying the above crime and the reason attributable to the mistake of facts cannot be considered as a legitimate ground for appeal, and all of the arguments are without merit.

The court below's decision against Defendant 1 is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on habitual offenders, such as theory of lawsuit, which affected the application of law.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. In applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the Defendants, the number of days pending trial after the appeal against the Defendants shall be included in each imprisonment with prison labor, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow