A thief who inflicts bodily injury on several victims in order to escape arrest.

If the defendant inflicts an injury on several victims for the purpose of evading arrest after the theft crime, several robbery and injury crimes according to the number of victims are established, which are the substantial relationship of insurance crimes with each other.

Articles 37 and 337 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1392 delivered on December 6, 1966 (Article 335 (8) 451 of the Criminal Act, Article 3672 14) 83Do524 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Article 37 (1) (63) 96 of the Criminal Act, Article 37 (63) 31 B/208 943)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (85 high-class81)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

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

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant committed assault by misunderstanding that he was guilty of committing the larceny of this case or by arresting him as an offender on the way on which he had committed the larceny of this case without any one, but the court below recognized it as a crime of robbery, bodily injury, and obstruction of the performance of official duties. The judgment of the court below is erroneous, and second, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

First of all, the judgment of the court below, as a criminal facts, found that the defendant, as a knife, knife, knife the left shoulder of Non-Indicted 1 for the purpose of larcenying and evading arrest at the time of the original trial, the defendant applied the knife to knife, the knife part of the unit per week, and Non-Indicted 2 applied the knife knife knife knife to the knife, and caused the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

Since the criminal facts recognized by a member and the evidence relationship are the same as the time of original adjudication, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In the case of an injury by robbery as stated in the so-called judgment of the defendant, each of the crimes of robbery under Article 337 (1) of the Criminal Act is classified under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stated in the judgment of the court below are two crimes, one of the crimes of robbery against Non-Indicted 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below is punished under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Each of the crimes is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and each of the above crimes is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the same Act, and the punishment is not yet adjudicated under Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, and Article 55 (1) of the same Act shall be included in the term of imprisonment with prison labor for up to 30 months as provided for the above punishment.

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

Judges Giology (Presiding Judge) Order of Merit