Punishment of a crime where a victim of rape raises money to the defendant at the scene of the crime while the victim of rape escape;

The so-called larceny that the defendant takes out the money of the victim's possession in a way that the victim has escaped while leaving the scene, and the hand room between them is not an object of possession but an object under the control of the victim by social norms.

Articles 329 and 360 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney So Jung-young

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2706 delivered on December 13, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

25 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the principal sentence.

Each ground for appeal by the defendant and public defender shall be examined together.

1. According to the evidence of the first instance trial maintained by the court below, among the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, the protocol of interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant prepared by the assistant judicial police officer of the first instance among the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance recognized the defendant's arbitraryness and contents on the trial date. Since it is obvious that the defendant consented to the statement of the victim and the items in subparagraph 1 of the attached evidence are admitted as evidence, the court of first instance did not err in the measures taken by the court of first instance to adopt the protocol and the evidence as evidence as evidence for conviction, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in the process of the preparation of evidence

2. At the first trial on the ownership of the victim, the grandchildren are nothing more than having been left and left at the scene when the victim has escaped, rather than having been abandoned or lost by the owner, and they are merely objects under the control of the victim by social norms. Thus, the defendant's so-called crime of larceny is satisfied at the first trial on the charge of taking out money owned by the victim by the victim. Therefore, the argument that the first trial on the ownership of the victim was erroneous in the application of the law on the premise that the grandchildren were the objects of escape from the possession of the victim at the time of trial on the first trial is groundless

3. In light of the records, it is not possible to find out the trace of the defendant's self-denunciation, and the mitigation of punishment due to self-denunciation is discretionary, so the court below or the court below did not render voluntary mitigation, and there is no error of law in the first deliberation measure. Since the 1,000 foot mold, seized by the defendant, is obvious by relevant evidence that it is part of the money that the defendant stolen from the victim's hand room, it is obvious that it is a part of the money that the defendant stolen from the victim's hand room, there is no illegality in the measures to return

4. Other grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years is sentenced, for which the judgment of the court below is reversed and the sentencing is too excessive.

5. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and a part of the number of detention days before the judgment is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)