beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
C Imprisonment with prison labor of four and a half years, and Defendant F.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the crime of robbery was not established against Defendant C for the following reasons, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the robbery was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. ① Defendant C did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition and coercion. Defendant C has asserted that there was no prior conspiracy of robbery. The purport of the assertion is that Defendant C did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition or coercion. Therefore, Defendant C did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition or coercion. Therefore, Defendant C is not guilty of the crime of robbery, and the crime of interference with business or coercion is only established without the crime of robbery. ② Defendant C did not have the state of failing to resist the victim at the place from which Defendant C had money, etc.
B. Although Defendant F1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles merely aiding and abetting a series of crimes committed by Defendant C, the lower court, which recognized Defendant F as a co-principal with Defendant C and thereby convicted Defendant C of the crime of heavy confinement and robbery and injury by robbery, has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.
C. Defendant B (unfair punishment) The lower court’s punishment of KRW 8 million is unreasonable. D. It is so unfair that Defendant B (unfair punishment of KRW 8 million) is unreasonable.
1) Defendant A did not directly have been at the scene of a crime in the course of assaulting the victim, but, as Defendant C, F, and robbery were conspired in advance, Defendant A is liable for the crime of injury by robbery, despite the fact that Defendant A is liable for the crime of injury by robbery, and Defendant A was found guilty of the crime of injury by robbery.