Quasi-Robbery of one of the thieves (Concurrents) and the liability for the crime of the thieves

Where the defendant and the Nonindicted Party jointly larceny, the defendant may not be exempted from liability for the crime of robbery unless the Nonindicted Party, who is the accomplice, has laid the victim's hand floor to escape arrest.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act, Article 337 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 69Do2280 delivered on January 27, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 71Do2073 delivered on January 31, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 71Do2073 delivered on January 31, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 10027Daad 10027, Supreme Court Decision 201Da1350 delivered on January 27, 19

Defendant

Busan District Court (81 High Court Decision 293)

The appeal is dismissed.

15 days from the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the punishment of the original court.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not commit the crime at the time of original judgment, and the crime was committed by the non-indicted, but the court below erred and affected the judgment; second, the defendant knew that he would larceny with the non-indicted and reported the network at the time of the crime; second, the defendant escaped, and the defendant was aware of the crime; second, the defendant was knife with the victim's hand floor to escape to avoid arrest and avoid arrest. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on robbery and did not constitute the so-called crime of robbery and the crime of robbery, and did not constitute the crime of robbery. third, since the defendant was to stop the crime of robbery, the defendant was guilty of the so-called crime of robbery, and thus the defendant was to be mitigated or exempted from punishment. However, the court below erred and adversely affected the judgment; fourth, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

In light of the records, if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was examined in comparison with the records, it can be found that the court below committed the crime at the time of original trial, and there is no other evidence to deem that the court below erred in its fact-finding, and even if the defendant did not take the escape while the crime was committed, as long as the non-indicted, who was the accomplice, did not take the above victim's hand floor in order to escape arrest, the defendant, who conspired with the above non-indicted, is liable for the crime as a co-principal against the above non-indicted, and according to the case records, the defendant was discovered of the goods to be stolen to the victim during physical color and escaped, so this does not result in the suspension of this crime by his own, and thus, the defendant cannot be seen as the so-called crime of suspension, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence, environment, motive for the crime, result, and circumstances after the crime, and the sentencing of the court below's sentencing is unreasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the appeal is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 115 days out of the number of days of confinement prior to the pronouncement of judgment shall be included in the punishment of the court below in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)