logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.25 2017노1394
특수강도등
Text

The judgment below

Part against Defendant A and part of the conviction against Defendant B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The knives of the hand saws used by Defendant A to commit robbery by Defendant A cannot be deemed to constitute “a deadly weapon” under Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of special robbery is improper.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of aiding and abetting special robbery cannot be recognized as the facts charged as follows.

① 피고인 B은 피고인 A에게 손 톱깎 이를 빌려준 후 피고인 A으로부터 위 손톱 깎이로 편의점을 털어 보겠다는 말을 들었으나, 그것이 농담인 줄 알고 적극 만류하지 않은 것뿐이다.

Therefore, Defendant B did not have the intention to assist in special robbery.

(2) The blades of the above saws shall not fall under the lethal weapons under Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) In light of the fact that the Defendants: (a) were released by the Defendants, and had continued to commit the crime of larceny, special robbery, etc. to raise living expenses; (b) on November 7, 2016, using the cellular phone acquired through a special larceny crime, the Defendants used cultural merchandise coupons for the purchase and realization of merchandise coupons; (c) the Defendants began to commit the larceny by discovering cell phones from the cargo vehicle and discussing the crime; and (d) Defendant B and C reported their surroundings while waiting in the vicinity until they completed the commission of the crime by Defendant A, etc., the Defendants can recognize the fact of conspiracy, time, place cooperation with respect to the special larceny crime on November 7, 2016.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of the above special larceny is unreasonable.

2) Punishments sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A:).

arrow