(a) Where one of the thieves who has committed violence and has committed an injury with intent to deviate from the arrest, the liability of the rest of the theft;

(b) Where other larceny accomplices have committed violence or bodily injury after escaping from the network, the responsibility for another larceny criminal who has escaped;

A. The establishment of quasi-Robbery is established when a thief commits violence or intimidation with a view to evading arrest while or after the commission of the larceny, and thereby resulting in bodily injury, the crime of injury by robbery is established. In a case where a larceny is committed in combination with one of the criminals, and where one of the criminals has committed violence for the purpose of evading arrest, and where one of the criminals has committed a robbery with a view to evading arrest, the rest of the criminals cannot be deemed to have committed the crime of injury by robbery.

B. The Defendant, who conspired to larceny, did not have any prior understanding or communication with other competitors (A), was aware that the place of the crime was prone, and the Defendant, through tobacco counter, stolen the goods by entering the shop, and sound the body of a person who was not prone to the outside of the counter, thereby causing the injury by committing the assault to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest of the victim, and under the circumstances presumed that the Defendant had escaped a considerable distance from the past, the Defendant could not be held jointly liable for the crime of robbery and injury by robbery since it appears that the Defendant could not have committed the assault to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest of the victim.

(b)Articles 30, 335, and 337 of the Criminal Code;

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352 Delivered on July 13, 1982

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1947 delivered on December 2, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

In order to establish robbery, it is established when the defendant commits violence or intimidation for the purpose of evading arrest in the course of or after the commission of larceny, and thereby, if such violence or intimidation was committed, it is established, and if one of the offenders commits robbery together with conspiracy, if the victim inflicted an injury by assault for the purpose of evading arrest, the remaining criminals shall not be exempted from the liability for the crime of robbery unless it is deemed that such assault or intimidation could not be committed. (See Supreme Court Decision 82Do1352, Jul. 13, 1982) Considering that there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence in light of the fact-finding evidence in the original judgment, it is impossible to find the defendant not guilty of the above act of assault or intimidation of the defendant on the ground that it was impossible to find the defendant guilty of the crime of robbery, regardless of the fact-finding, and therefore, it is impossible to expect the defendant to leave the counter and open it out of the open door for the purpose of larceny, regardless of his own size.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)