Article 335 of the Criminal Code provides that "When the thief uses violence to escape arrest."

A thief as referred to in this Article who uses violence to escape arrest is required to be subject to the same cases as such of the thief Act. In such a case, it shall not be considered as an attempted robbery, and in a case where the thief has inflicted an injury by committing an assault, it shall be an injury by robbery.

Article 335 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Kim Il-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 64No156 delivered on September 9, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

55 days, from among days of detention pending trial after an appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The Defendant’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal is a matter of decision based on the attempted robbery of robbery. This case’s attempt to flee from the attempted robbery and used assault and completed the attempted robbery, which cannot be punished by the attempted robbery under Article 342 of the Criminal Act. The Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s attempted robbery cannot be established for the purpose of robbery, and this case’s attempted robbery cannot be established, and even though the crime of robbery and robbery cannot be established, the Defendant’s defense counsel applied the crime of robbery and robbery to the Defendant.

However, it is not clear that the thief attempted larceny is also larceny, and therefore, when the thief referred to in Article 335 of the Criminal Act committed violence to evade arrest, it does not correspond to the same case of the thief attempted larceny. In such a case, it cannot be viewed as a quasi-bief attempted robbery. In order to escape arrest of the victim from the victim's house, the defendant committed assault, such as the use of the victim's inside and outside part of the thief, etc., and the use of the thief, and the use of the thief, etc., which requires three weeks of the thief, and the judgment of the first instance court is recognized as legitimate, that the first instance court applied Articles 37 and 335 of the Criminal Act to the defendant.

The ground of appeal by the defendant is that the defendant did not commit robbery and the court below did not recognize this case as larceny, and the defendant was illegal, and the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant was aimed at evading the arrest of the acting person who committed an emergency escape or self-defense by committing a collective assault by 4,5 persons who want to escape from the attempted larceny.

However, as recognized by the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant, who committed assault to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, was explained in the judgment of the defense counsel's appeal. Thus, the court below's application of Articles 337 and 335 of the Criminal Act to the defendant is legitimate. There are no grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman