Means and time of injury in the crime of robbery;

The crime of injury by robbery is established when a thief inflicts an injury in order to resist the recovery of property, to escape arrest or to destroy a trace of the crime, while or after the commission of the thief, and thus, it does not necessarily require an injury to the guidance by taking arms and taking money.

Article 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1, 2 and Prosecutor (Defendant 3)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant)

Daegu High Court Decision 85No1489 delivered on January 6, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after each appeal against Defendant 1 and 2 shall be included in the calculation of the principal penalty for 30 days, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) As to Defendant 1 and 2’s grounds of appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendants stolen the money and valuables of the victim 1 and caused the injury to the victim 2 in order to attach them. In light of the records, the above recognition is just and there is no error of law which misleads the facts by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all deliberation, and the crime of injury by robbery is established when the larceny inflicts an injury in order to resist the recovery of property, to evade arrest or to destroy the criminal record (see Supreme Court Decision 64Do352 delivered on September 30, 1964). Since it is established when the theft committed an injury in order to resist the recovery of property, to escape arrest or to destroy the criminal record during or after the enforcement of the larceny, it is not necessary to force the party members to take the money and valuables by force and to inflict an injury on the guidance, and therefore, in this case, even if Defendant 1 did not possess a weapon, it is not reasonable to be exempted from liability for the crime of injury by robbery

(2) As to the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal:

In light of the records, the court below's judgment which acquitted Defendant 3 on the ground that the evidence of the theory of the lawsuit corresponding to the facts charged in this case was presented and the dissenting evidence was not presented in light of the records, and the judgment below which acquitted Defendant 3 on the ground that there was no proof of the crime, is justified, and it cannot be found that there was a mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or a b

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and as to Defendants 1 and 2, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in imprisonment with prison labor of the same Defendants pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)