2010 Gohap518 Injury by robbery

Least** (60*********1********) labor,

Housing Daegu** Gu** Dong********* apartment**** apartment*** such**** heading*

Daegu* old** such***** * *****

Right Visits

Attorney** (Korean Pharmacopoeia)

March 15, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Criminal facts

Criminal Power

On December 24, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court for fraud, etc.

6. 24. The Daegu Prison completed the enforcement of the sentence.

Facts of crime

1. On October 12, 2010: around 25, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door of the performance division room and opened it with the intent to steal goods at the performance hall located in the performance hall located in the Jung-gu, Daegu-dong 53 - 3 Dong shopping 10 East Asia-dong; (b) around 25, the Defendant went back a room, etc., which is a performance hall owned by the victim, ******* the victim, the representative of the victim. However, at that time, the Defendant got out of the performance hall, which was discovered in a small measure inside the performance hall, and came out to escape without having his intention.

The Defendant, as seen above, has driven away from the 8th floor store in the East Asia shopping mall while escaping, was attached to the Do governor, and the Do governor (the Do governor, who was the drama belonging to the above theater, and the Do governor (the 26 years old) of the victim’s right. “I are the Doson’s Doard.”

The flag of the ship is cut off. The brushes. The brushes are h. h. h. h. h. h. h? h? h. h.h. h. h.h. h.h. h.h. h.h.h. h.h.h. h.h. h.h.h. h.h. h.h. h.h.h. h.h. h.h. h.h.

Accordingly, for the purpose of evading arrest, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the victim who is in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment on the part of the head of the victim, and on the part of the head of the victim, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the head of the Dong, such as an internal inception, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment on the part of the head of the Dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the chief of the witness;

1. A report on the statement of the police concerning the head of the police station;

1. Each written diagnosis of injury on the head of the police station and the authority;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Each photograph (the sequence 3, 16 of the evidence list);

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records and investigation reports (the reporting date of confirmation of the date of release and attachment of a copy of the judgment);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act [Selection of imprisonment: Provided, That the upper limit of imprisonment shall be in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)];

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

When the punishment is aggravated with respect to imprisonment for breach of Article 35 or proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act, the maximum of the punishment shall be governed by the proviso of Article 42 of the former Criminal

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Robbery and Injury by Robbery)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

The defendant and defense counsel's assertion and judgment thereon

1. Determination as to the assertion that there was no intention to larceny

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention of larceny because the defendant did not enter the performance hall in order to steals things. Thus, if the defendant denies the intention, the intention is in-depth fact, so it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that have considerable relation to the above in light of the nature of the things. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by each evidence in the judgment, i.e., ① the head of the victim Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY Y YY Y

In light of the fact that the defendant's assertion that the defendant's entry into the performance hall is difficult in light of the empirical rule, and according to the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's entry into the performance hall with his intention to steal the article, so the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel disputing this point is without merit.

2. Determination on the assertion that there was no intention to evade arrest

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not have an intention to evade arrest, and therefore do not constitute quasi-Robbery. However, according to each evidence in the judgment, the defendant was discovered in the performance hall room to the head of the victim. When the defendant was discovered, the defendant attempted to get the above victim from her hand to her hand over the 10th to 8th floor through the performance hall and the emergency stairs. The defendant tried to escape arrest of the defendant because he could recognize the fact between the defendant and the 8th floor by driving away the defendant. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

3. Determination on the assertion that the act constitutes self-defense

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of this case was not a crime because the crime of this case was committed as self-defense in an effort to defend the defendant from the crime of larceny. Thus, to be recognized as self-defense under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Act, the act must be to defend the current unfair infringement of his/her or other person's legal interests. Further, the defense act should be socially reasonable in consideration of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of legal interests infringed by the infringement. The defendant's defense act should be socially reasonable in light of each evidence, and the defendant's defense right cannot be acknowledged as being infringed upon by the victim's right to self-defense first of all, without asking the victim's right to self-defense to the extent that the defendant was found to have been aware that he/she had tried to remove the defendant from the public performance room. The defendant's defense right to the victim's 8th floor and the defendant's right to self-defense after his/her escape of the victim's 8th floor after his/her escape.

The reason for sentencing [the scope of punishment to be imposed] 3 years and six months to 12 years and six months

[Basic Crimes] The crime of robbery and Infliction of Bodily Harm on the part of the Victim's Authority

[Types of Crimes] In the event of robbery, In the event of a result of injury, Type 1 (General Robbery)

[Special Mitigations] In the event of minor injuries or injuries, but the basic crime is committed in attempted crimes, simple assault and intimidation to escape arrest.

[Scope of Recommendation Based on Sentencing] Reduction Area, 2 years of imprisonment, 4 years

[Scope of Recommendation by Special Adjustment] Imprisonment for 1 year - 4 years (the lower limit of 1/2 shall be mitigated)

[Concurrent Crimes] The crime of injury by robbery against the chief of the victim

[Types of Crimes] In the event of robbery, In the event of a result of injury, Type 1 (General Robbery)

[Special Mitigations] In the event of minor injuries or injuries, but the basic crime is committed in attempted crimes, simple assault and intimidation to escape arrest.

[Scope of Recommendation Based on Sentencing] Reduction Area, 2 years of imprisonment, 4 years

[Scope of Recommendation by Special Adjustment] Imprisonment for 1 year - 4 years (the lower limit of 1/2 shall be mitigated)

[Scope of Recommendation Based on the Criteria for Sentencing] 3 years and 6 months - 6 years (the maximum amount of concurrent crimes as a result of the increase of 1/2 of the maximum amount of concurrent crimes in the upper limit of basic crimes, the scope of sentencing in the sentencing guidelines shall be from 1 years to 6 years. The scope of sentencing in the sentencing guidelines shall be governed by the law in case of inconsistency between the scope of sentencing in the sentencing guidelines and the scope of applicable sentences in the law)

[Determination of sentence] The punishment as ordered is determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in addition to taking into consideration the following favorable circumstances: (a) larceny, which is a repeated crime of this type, and fraud, and criminal records, and the nature of the crime, in which many people are injured in the course of evading arrest; (b) however, the occurrence of the result of the bodily injury, which is a basic crime, is about attempted larceny; and (c) the degree of injury inflicted on the Defendant is not serious; and (d) the degree of injury inflicted upon the Defendant is not serious.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

Dogna Dogna Dog Dogna Dog

○ All seven jurors guilty

Opinions on the sentencing of terms

○ Imprisonment with prison labor for all others, three years and six months

Judges Park Jae-sik

Members of the organizing group

Maternus