Whether one of the accomplices of larceny is responsible for the assault by one person and the robbery by another.

In cases where one of the accomplices in larceny has inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim in order to escape arrest, other accomplices may not be exempted from criminal liability of robbery, regardless of whether or not they have knowledge of the result thereof.

Articles 335 and 337 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court (66Da9655)

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

One hundred days out of the number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the trial court shall be included in each original sentence against the Defendants.

The gist of appeal against Defendant 1 and his defense counsel against the same defendant is that at around 04:0 on March 11, 1965, the defendant entered the house of Seongdong-gu Mobile (hereinafter omitted) and stolen things, such as research equipment in his possession. However, despite the fact that the defendant was conspired with Nonindicted 2 to commit a thief, or combined with the defendant to escape from arrest on the spot of the thief, the defendant did not have any harm on the face of the victim Nonindicted 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 1 in order to escape from arrest on the spot of the thief, and thus, the court below found the defendant's criminal liability for the crime of larceny committed in collusion with Nonindicted 1 in order to escape from the danger of robbery, and thus, it was justified for the court below to find that there was an error of law by misunderstanding that the defendant was not guilty on the face of the accomplice, who was the accomplice, and that the defendant did not have any harm on the part of the defendant, for the purpose of arresting him.

Third, according to the trial records of the court below, the defendant 2's lawsuit procedure violated the law and affected the judgment, and according to the trial records of the court below, the facts that the court below reached the judgment of the court below after legitimate deliberation of facts as to each charge of good offices against the defendant, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit in the procedure of the court below.

Therefore, since each appeal by the Defendants is without merit, it is entirely dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 100 days each of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in the first instance shall be included in the original sentence against the Defendants.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)