beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The injured party's wife resulting from the crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is minor and does not constitute an injury to the crime of robbery (the defendant was committed in advance by robbery in the court below, and the accomplice was unaware of the fact that he inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim at the time of the crime, and thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery. However, in the trial, the court below acknowledged the liability for the crime of robbery and asserted the above circumstances as grounds for sentencing sentencing). Nevertheless, the court below convicting the defendant of the charge of this case is unlawful.
In light of the fact that the court below took part in the crime of this case under the economic lack of the allegation of unfair sentencing, etc., the sentence of imprisonment (three years and six months for imprisonment) by the defendant is too unreasonable.
As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the injury of robbery refers to a change of a victim’s physical health condition to a poor condition, and a hindrance to his/her living function is caused. Thus, even if the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the treatment is not provided, there is no need for treatment, and even if the injured party’s wife is extremely minor, it does not interfere with his/her daily life, and if the injured party’s physical health condition can be naturally cured due to the passage of the time,
Inasmuch as it is difficult to see that an injury is caused to the function of life or life, it cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003).
Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, it is necessary to examine whether the injured party’s injury caused by the crime of this case constitutes the crime of robbery and injury.
In the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court, based on the evidence at the market.