Whether the crime of injury by robbery is established in cases where quasi-Robbery causes injury to the victim

In cases where a thief has inflicted an injury on the victim by threatening violence to the extent of non-performance of defense to the extent of non-performance of defense, and thereby has inflicted an injury on the victim, the crime of robbery shall be constituted.

Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do441 delivered on April 20, 1971

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74 High Court Decision 74Gohap327)

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention after an appeal shall be included in each original sentence of the original judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is as follows: first, the same defendant did not enter the office of the victim for robbery in the facts charged with robbery, but entered the office of the above defendant 2 with the above defendant 2 for larceny, and the head of the house when the defendant escaped in order to get the defendant to wear the defendant, and put him to the police officer in the patrol and was committing robbery. However, he did not commit robbery. The court below punished the defendant as robbery by robbery, and the court below erred in misconception of facts or erroneous application of law that could affect the judgment. Second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2 and the defendants' defense counsel is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below is too large.

In light of the records, first of all, a comprehensive review of various evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, and a comprehensive review of the facts charged by the defendants, which are judged by the court below, can be sufficiently recognized, and in case the theft commits assault to the extent of avoiding arrest to the extent that it does not resist to resist, thereby causing bodily injury to the victim, it is clear that the crime of robbery under Article 337 of the Criminal Act should be constituted. As such, the court below did not find any illegality as pointed out in the arguments. Then, examining in detail the circumstances as to the motive, means, results, degree of damage, degree of damage, age of the defendants, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, circumstances after the crime, etc., of which the court below duly investigated, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the defendants, it is not proper to determine the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendants, and it is not unreasonable to see that the judgment of the punishment imposed by the defendants is too unreasonable. In

Therefore, according to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the defendants' appeals shall be dismissed, and one hundred twenty-five days out of the detention days after the appeal is made pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)