Requirements for establishing the crime of injury resulting from robbery

In the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery, regardless of whether the act of robbery is the basic robbery, that is, the taking of property or the taking of economic benefits, and if only the result of the bodily injury at the site of robbery occurs, the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery shall be established.

Articles 337 and 334 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do154 delivered on March 18, 1969 (Kakadd 271, Supreme Court Decision 17 ① 95 delivered on March 17, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 70Do2518 delivered on January 26, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9382, Supreme Court Decision 191Do1349 delivered on March 18, 196, Supreme Court Decision 337(9)1349 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and one other

Each defendant

Sung Dong-dong branch of Seoul District Court (72 Gohap204) in the first instance court

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for a short term of two years and three years.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

One brick (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated by Defendant 2, and one knife (No. 2) shall be confiscated by Defendant 1.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendants is that the judgment of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendants were juveniles, and that the defendants did not have a criminal record and did not cause any contingent action, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2 is that the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 conspired with the above defendant 1, but there is only no fact that the defendant was in a taxi with the above defendant 1, and there is only a wrong fact that the defendant committed a crime at the time of the original trial in collusion with the above defendant 1, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and even if not, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the judgment of the court below against the above defendant was too unreasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the disposition against the defendant is changed.

First, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the ground that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that it constitutes an attempted crime on the ground that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the ground that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the part of the non-indicted 2, i.e., taking property or acquiring pecuniary benefits, and that the defendant et al. committed an attempted crime on the part of the non-indicted 2, i.e., an attempted crime on the part of the victim et al., an attempted crime on the part of the non-indicted 2, regardless of the attempted crime on the part of the defendant et al., and that the court below's judgment below is reversed, and that the crime on the robbery or robbery did not affect the judgment.

Criminal facts

The defendant et al. tried to jointly take money from the taxi driver's number on October 13, 1972. At around 18:00, the defendant et al. found (vehicle number omitted) or a taxi that the victim of the non-indicted 1 drives from the surface of the king-dong in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, with a single gate-gu in front of the king-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and found the taxi at the front-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si and stopped the taxi and her driver's next seat. The defendant et al. al. al. was the driver's next seat, and the defendant 2 was the driver's next seat and was the driver's next seat in front of the above paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

Since it is the same as the timely statement of the judgment of the court below, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

Since the judgment of the Defendants falls under Articles 337 and 334 of the Criminal Act, they choose the prescribed limited term punishment, and considering the circumstances such as that the Defendants are the first offender, and the Defendants are the first offender and the depth of these crimes, they shall be considered, under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, discretionary mitigation is conducted, and the Defendants are the juveniles under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, so they shall apply Article 54 of the same Act and be punished as imprisonment for a limited term of not less than 3 years and 6 months and not more than 7 months.

As the case in which only the defendants appealed, a more severe punishment than that of the original judgment is not imposed, under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a short-term of two years and three years, which is the same as that of each original judgment, and under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 100 days each of the detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above punishment, and under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, one knife (No. 1) shall be included in the attached punishment, and under Article 57 of the Criminal Act, one knife (No. 2) seized shall be included in the attached punishment, and under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, one knife shall be confiscated from Defendant 2 and one knife

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

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