Examples that the robbery injury and the crime of interference with business constitute crimes of the same or similar kind as those of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

The injury by robbery is an act by violence against life and body, and the content of the interference with the business of this case is different from the coffee, booms the cryp to the coffee, makes the employee take a bath on the ground that the content of the interference with the business did not bring about any drinking and call, and let the customer get his hand to get off his client and telephone, and let the customer get off his phone, etc., and expressed an aggressive attitude on the other party by interfering with the business due to violence, the above crime constitutes a crime identical or similar to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by exercising violence against the person.

Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney late Jae-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 85No3474,85No419 Decided March 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The days of detention pending trial after appeal shall be included in the imprisonment concerned for seventy days.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and his defense counsel are also examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below compared each evidence in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts against the defendant in the first instance judgment's approval, and thus, cannot lead to an erroneous determination of facts by violating the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. In this case where a sentence less than 10 years has been imposed against the defendant, the grounds for unfair sentencing cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The theory of lawsuit argues that the defendant's protective custody is illegal because it does not constitute a crime identical with or similar to a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, while the defendant was committed before and after the judgment of the court, because it does not meet the protective custody requirement under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act.

However, the robbery injury by robbery is an act by violence against life and body, and it is reasonable to view that the obstruction of business constitutes a crime of the same kind or a similar crime in comparison with each other in light of the following reasons: (a) according to a certified copy of the judgment bound by the records (a) (a copy of the investigation record 45 through 47), franchising water into coffee; (b) franchising an employee for drinking and call; and (c) franchising the customer by hand on his hand; and (d) franchising the customer from the phone with his phone; and (e) franchising his aggressive attitude to the other party by violence, the above crimes interfere with his duties; and (e) expressed an aggressive attitude against the other party by exercising violence; and (e) it is reasonable to view that the crime constitutes a crime of the same kind or a similar crime in comparison with each other in light of the following reasons as stated in Article 6(2)6 of the Social Protection Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act Article 57 to include 70 days of pre-trial detention after the appeal in the imprisonment.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)