Quasi-Robbery and liability of one of the larcenys, and liability of other accomplices.

Even though there is no fact that the defendant took part in the larceny only and inflicts any bodily injury on him, if another defendant who is a joint criminal suspect, commits violence against the victim with the intention to escape arrest, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of robbery.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Do2073 Decided January 31, 1972, 71Do2073 (Supreme Court Decision 10027, Supreme Court Decision 200Nu5, Supreme Court Decision 337(10)1/1350, Supreme Court Decision 76Do3267 Decided December 14, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 11430, Supreme Court Decision 243Da3146, Supreme Court Decision 243Da146, Supreme Court Decision 30(21)1242, Court Gazette No. 552-9821)

Defendant 1 and one other

Daejeon District Court Decision 79 High Court Decision 158

1. Each appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed.

2. 120 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the sentence of each original judgment against the accused, etc.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is that the court below recognized that the crime of this case was committed jointly with Defendant 2 even though the crime was committed by Defendant 1 and was not committed jointly with Defendant 2. Second, the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 2 is too unreasonable, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 is that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty despite the absence of any facts committing this case. Second, the court below's conviction of Defendant 2 is erroneous, and that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant, etc.'s defense counsel is that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant, etc. is that the first, even though Defendant 2 did not have any fact about Defendant 1's injury to the victim, it is erroneous that the court below was punished as the crime of robbery injury, and that each sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant 2,

First of all, we examine the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts by the defendant, etc., and comprehensively examine the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, and therefore, we cannot accept each of the above grounds for appeal since the defendant, etc. can sufficiently recognize the facts constituting the crime

As to the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts by defense counsel, even though Defendant 2 did not have any fact about the charge of larceny and injury, as alleged by the counsel, when Defendant 1, a joint criminal suspect, committed assault to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the crime of robbery or injury. Thus, the above appeal cannot be accepted.

Finally, examining in detail the circumstances as to the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant et al. and his defense counsel, such as health class, each age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record relation, and the nature of the crime in this case, etc., of the defendant et al., the determination of each sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant et al. is proper and too unreasonable. Therefore, the above grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, each appeal filed by the defendant, etc. against the defendant, etc. is without merit. Accordingly, each appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and one hundred and twenty days out of the number of days of confinement before the sentencing of this case shall be included in the sentence of each judgment of the court below against the defendant, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)