2017Gohap354.Attempted special robbery, attempted special larceny, and attempted larceny

A

The Republic of Korea shall institute a prosecution, and the public trial for a leather;

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

June 30, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Criminal facts

1. Attempted special robbery;

On March 30, 2017, at around 04:06, the Defendant, at “D convenience store located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, laid off a frigerite disease at the display room, and broken it off. On the other hand, the Defendant tried to force the Defendant to receive money and valuables from the victim by threatening the Victim E (24 years old), who is an employee, by cutting the bottle of a frigerite disease, which is a deadly weapon, and making a knicker's disease a knicker's disease a knicker, a knicker's disease, a knicker's disease, a knicker's disease, a knicker's disease, and knicker's employee E (24 years old), but attempted

2. Attempted special larceny;

(a) A person who has attempted special larceny against victim F;

On March 30, 2017, at around 04:00, the Defendant: (a) was placed in front of the He Beauty G operated by the victim F, who was in the vicinity of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and (b) was broken up at the front door of the cosmetic room, and attempted to steals money and valuables; (c) but (d) was broken out by a glass window, and sound would be considerably cut off, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s attempted flight (e.g., escape 1).

(b) A person who has attempted special larceny against victim I;

On March 30, 2017, around 04:40 on March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) opened cement bricks in front of the victim's restaurant operated by the J in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City before leaving the entrance entrance entrance entrance door of the restaurant, thereby destroying them, and attempted to steals money and valuables, but (b) failed to commit it without a glass door.

3. Attempted larceny;

On March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 05:10 on March 30, 2017, entered a fire extinguisher operated by the victim M in Gwanak-gu L and the first floor, and carried out a brush locking machine, and attempted to steals money and valuables within the locking machine, but attempted to steals money and valuables.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to E and I;

1. Each written statement of F,O, and M;

1. A report on internal investigation (verification of CCTVs in place), a report on internal investigation (referring to tracking of a suspect's escape route), a report on the occurrence of property damage, and a report on the occurrence of property;

1. The assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel by taking each photograph, CCTV-faging photograph, each field photograph, etc., and by cutting CCTV at the scene of a crime;

As to attempted special robbery, the defendant and his defense counsel stated that the defendant's appearance (the end of the time) or the defendant did not seem to have a particularly brut or frighten the victim at the time of threatening the victim, etc., the defendant's intimidation, which is a means of robbery, should not objectively suppress or resist the other party's resistance from social norms. Thus, the defendant's intimidation, which is a means of robbery, should not objectively force or resist the other party's resistance from social norms. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the victim did not think that it was difficult for the police to take an 'defrutly' as to the situation at the time of threatening the defendant. (Evidence No. 16 of the evidence record) According to CCTV image, the defendant's assertion that the defendant merely brutly embling the main disease within convenience points, and that the victim had been forced to resist the victim at the time of committing the crime. In light of social norms, the victim was objectively able to resist or resist the victim.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 342, 334(2), and 334(1) of the Criminal Act (the charge of attempted special robbery, the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 342 and 331(1) of the Criminal Act (the charge of attempted special larceny) of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act (the charge of attempted larceny and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes concerning attempted special robbery prescribed by the most severe punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and three months from March to 11 months;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply inasmuch as each of the crimes of this case committed by the accused was committed by all attempted crimes.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant committed each of the instant special robbery, two recommended special larceny, and attempted larceny during a period of one hour, using the crepans in which there is no person in human body, and committed the instant crime. Among them, the crime of attempted special robbery was threatened to the victim who was mixed at the convenience store at night, and was forcibly withdrawn property, and thus, the victim seems to have received considerable fear and mental shock. In addition, even though each of the instant crimes was serious, the Defendant did not make efforts to recover from damage without any reflection, even though the nature of each of the instant crimes was poor. Such circumstances are the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, all of the crimes of this case are recognized as a primary offender with no criminal history; all of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant was attempted; and physical damage caused by the defendant was not significant; considering the age, character, living environment, health conditions of the defendant; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and considering all of the sentencing factors of the defendant during the trial process of this case, including circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

The presiding judge shall be changed.

Judges Tae-young

Judicial Chief Judge;

1) 공소장에는 '유리창이 깨지지 않아 미수에 그쳤다'라고 기재되어 있으나, 당시 현장사진(증거기록 제129쪽)에 의하면 당시 피고인이 던진 벽돌로 인하여 미용실 유리창이 깨진 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 피고인도 경찰, 검찰에서 '벽돌을 유리창에 던지니깐 쨍그랑하고 깨지는 소리가 났고, 너무 크게 났는지 깨지는 소리를 듣고 옆 건물 편의점에서 일하는 사람이 밖으로 나오기에 무서워서 미용실에는 들어가지 못하고 도망을 치게 되었다'라는 취지로 진술하고 있으므로(증거기록 제148, 149, 186쪽), 피고인의 방어권 행사에 실질적으로 불이익을 주지 않는 범위내에서 직권으로 위와 같이 수정하여 인정한다.