Cases where there is an error not requiring the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

In relation to the crime of robbery, injury by robbery and robbery, each repeated offender is subject to heavy aggravation of punishment as provided for in the crime of robbery and injury by robbery, resulting in an unreasonable expansion of the term of punishment that does not apply the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act, thereby committing an unlawful act committed by the defendant as a disadvantageous range of punishment.

Articles 35, 37, and 42 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do2681 Decided March 9, 1971 (Kakadd. 9475, Supreme Court Decision 19Do105 Decided March 9, 197 and summary of decision Article 42(2)1253 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (73 Gohap30 delivered on April 1, 200)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

80 days from the detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

From among the seized articles, one domestic set, one radio (No. 4) and one set (No. 5) for examination color shall be returned to each victim's name unexplosion.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the defendant's family environment or the motive of the crime in this case, and the defendant is reversed the judgment of the court below which sentenced an irregular sentence since he has attained majority as of November 19, 1973 and the defendant is sentenced to an irregular fixed sentence. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

First, according to the judgment of the court below, among the articles seized in the order, the court below erred in the application of the law that affected the judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel as disadvantageous to the defendant, on the following grounds: (a) Nos. 3 and 4 were returned to the victim non-indicted 1; and (b) returned the same articles to two persons; (c) as the reason for legal application, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the law that affected the judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel as to the grounds for appeal, and reversed the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (d) when the crime of robbery and robbery are committed concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 42 of the Criminal Act.

(Criminal Facts)

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member are the same as the timely facts of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Abstract of Evidence)

All of the facts in the judgment of the defendant's prior convictions shall be determined by a fingerprint inquiry notice to the defendant prepared by the Director General, except the parts and degree of injury in the facts in the judgment;

1. In the protocol of the original trial, the statement consistent with the facts in the original trial by the defendant;

1. Statement that corresponds to each of the facts contained in the protocol of interrogation of the accused and the statement of Nonindicted Party 2 as to the prosecutor’s protocol;

1. Statement consistent with the judgment in each protocol of interrogation of the accused and each protocol of statement concerning Nonindicted 2, 3, 1, and 4 in the preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers; and

1. Records of verification of the preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers and records of seizure corresponding to the decisions;

1. The parts and the degree of the injury caused by the judgment, based on each existing fact of excessive (proof No. 1) of one column (proof No. 4) for domestic Twitter radio (certificate No. 1) in the Republic of Korea, and one column (proof No. 5);

1. Since a doctor’s written diagnosis on Nonindicted 3 in Nonindicted 5’s written diagnosis may be recognized, all of the facts in the judgment are proven.

(Application of Law)

Article 330 of the Criminal Act as to larcenys at night under Article 1.3.5.6 of the holding of the defendant's judgment. Article 330 of the Criminal Act as to robberys at night is Article 337 of the same Act. Article 333 of the same Act as to robberys at night. Article 4 of the judgment of the court below is as to robberys at robberys at night. Since the defendant selects the prescribed imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant is a repeated offender under Article 35.1 of the same Act, the punishment for robberys at night and robberys under Article 35.3.5.6 of the judgment of the court below is a repeated offender under Article 35.2 of the same Act within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the same Act, and Article 38.3 of the same Act provides that each crime is concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the same Act, and Article 38.3 of the same Act provides that the punishment for robberys at night and Article 50 of the same Act shall be included in the sentence of return injury to the victim under Article 2 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Regular (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-jin-gu