beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The Defendant did not have any intention to forcibly take money from the victim, and the Defendant did not assault or threaten the victim to the extent that he would suppress or not capable of resisting the victim’s resistance, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s act of assaulting or threatening the victim and the act of transferring the victim’s money to account, and thus, the crime of injury by robbery is not established.
2. Determination
A. In a case where the act of confinement cannot be deemed to continue even after the commission of an injury by robbery was completed, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and where the act of confinement cannot be deemed to have been committed merely after the commission of an injury by robbery, it constitutes the crime of confinement and the crime of injury by robbery. In this case, the crime of confinement and the crime of injury by robbery should be deemed to be in the relation of an ordinary concurrent crime
(1) The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) induced a victim to D office on January 10, 2003; (c) assaulted to the extent that it requires three weeks of injury treatment; and (d) forced the victim to use the D office on March 7, 2012; and (e) forced the victim to use the money; and (e) demanded the victim to use the money; and (e) transferred the money from KRW 1 million on March 8, 2012 to KRW 1 million on March 7, 2012; and (e) the robbery was injured by robbery; and (e) the Defendant continued to use the money from around 03:00 on March 7, 2012 to around 04:0 on March 8, 2012; and (e) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been detained with robbery or to have been detained by the victim on March 8, 2012, even if having finished the crime.
Thus, the act of confinement in this case is nothing more than the means of injury by robbery, and thus the crime of confinement and the crime of injury by robbery are Article 40 of the Criminal Act.