Punishment of violence committed by one of the larceny and quasi-Robbery committed by other accomplices

Even though there was a public conspiracy to inflict an injury on the part of the criminal defendant for the purpose of evading arrest, if the criminal defendant committed an assault to escape arrest by such person, the criminal defendant may not be exempted from the liability for the crime of quasi-Robbery.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do2073 delivered on January 31, 1972 (Kakadd 10027; Supreme Court Decision 200Do2038 delivered on December 26, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 20Do2038 delivered on December 26, 1969

Defendant

Gangnam branch court of the Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (74 high-22)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The sixty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date of the final decision.

The gist of the defendant's first ground for appeal is that the defendant was absent from the defendant's attempt of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 and went into the office of the victim's grievances, and the court below only went away, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. The first ground for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel was that the defendant conspireds only to larceny with the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, and there was no conspiracy until the defendant committed an injury to evade arrest, and the injury was inflicted on the defendant in order to escape arrest, as in the original case, the court below determined that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to quasi-Robbery by applying Articles 37, 33, and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the summary of the first ground for appeal by the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel as to the defendant and the non-indicted 2.

Therefore, the first ground for appeal of the defendant and the defendant's defense counsel is examined, and the various evidence duly adopted by the court below (in particular, the defendant led to the crime in the court below) are examined in light of the records, the principal facts of the defendant's judgment can be recognized. In addition, as in this case, there is no conspiracy to inflict bodily injury on the defendant in order to avoid arrest and to escape arrest, and even if the defendant committed assault to escape arrest, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for robbery.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) considering the second ground for appeal, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the instant crime; (b) the determination of the Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant is deemed to be unfair because the amount of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable; and (c) accordingly, the lower court’s appeal is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The court below's decision corresponds to Articles 335, 33, and 30 of the Criminal Act. Since this case is established when the defendant is under age, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances of the crime, such as the point that the defendant was made out of the attempt of the unsatisfy co-offenders who do not reach age, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years within the scope of the term of punishment mitigated under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, and 60 days within the period of imprisonment before the sentence of the court below shall be included in the above sentence under Article 57 of the same Act, and the defendant shall be punished by the imprisonment for 60 days within the period of imprisonment before the sentence of the court below, and the defendant shall be punished by a depth of the whole expenses after the sentence of this case. Thus, the execution of the above sentence shall be

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

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)