The number of crimes in which robbery inflicts an injury on two victims;

Since one crime of injury by robbery is established for each injured party, the crime of injury by robbery is two crimes of this case, which are two victims, and the judgment of the court below, despite the substantive concurrent crimes, has been committed as one of the crimes of injury by robbery, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of the crimes of injury by robbery.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Busan District Court (80 High Court Decision 941)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The seventy days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts which found the defendant guilty, not based on the evidence, and the second point of the grounds for appeal and the second point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant are too unreasonable since the original judgment is too unreasonable. Thus, first of all, considering the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime at the time of the original trial against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to deem that the fact-finding by the court below was erroneous, and there is no ground for

However, according to the judgment of the court below, the defendant committed robbery in this case, thereby recognizing the fact that the defendant committed robbery in this case and thereby caused the injury that requires three weeks of medical treatment to the victim non-indicted 1 and the injury that requires two weeks of medical treatment to the victim non-indicted 2, and then, in applying the law, the crime of robbery was committed as one of the crimes in the application of the law. Since the crime of robbery was committed as one of the two crimes, although the judgment of the court below was in a relation of substantive concurrent crimes, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the number of the crimes of robbery, and therefore the decision of the remaining grounds for appeal is unnecessary.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided after pleading.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

The so-called "competence" in the law refers to Articles 337, 342, and 333 of the Criminal Act. Each of the above crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act. Since the above crimes are concurrent crimes under Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, there are reasons for concurrent crimes with respect to the victim non-indicted 1, among whom the facts of the crime are serious in accordance with Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, and taking into account the circumstances of the crime, the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months within the period of punishment, and seven days within the period of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the above punishment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)