(a) Where an inclusive crime is constituted:

B. Whether res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment on the crime of violating Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the provision for the aggravated punishment for the habitual offender of special robbery, affects the crime

(c) Where the result of an injury has occurred due to an act of one of the accomplices in robbery, the rest of the accomplices;

A. A. A comprehensive crime constitutes a single crime because several acts constitute a single crime merely because they constitute a single crime. Whether several acts constitute a single crime by the same intent or multiple acts with respect to a single and the same legal interest are conducted inseparably by the same intent. Thus, a single act constitutes a single crime under the premise that several acts constituting the elements of a single crime are acts of the same kind, and that such acts constitute a single act under the premise that the elements of a single act are fundamentally identical to the act.

B. Even if the crime of injury by robbery was committed before the final and conclusive judgment on the crime of violation of Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the aggravated provision for the crime of injury by robbery, the crime of injury by robbery and special robbery are different from the act constituting the element thereof, as well as the Criminal Act on the crime of injury by robbery does not have any aggravated provision unlike the crime of robbery, special robbery, robbery, marine robbery, etc. under the same provision, and thus, the crime of violation of Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which provides for the aggravated punishment of special robbery and the crime of injury by robbery are not related to the crime of injury by robbery

C. If an accomplice in robbery suffered an injury in the course of intimidation of the victim, the robbery cannot be exempt from the liability for the crime of robbery even though he did not have the intention of joint processing in the point of injury, and the consequence of the injury was not due to his act.

(b)Article 37(b) of the Criminal Code; Article 326(c) of the Criminal Code; Article 30 of the Criminal Code; Article 337 of the Criminal Code;

Supreme Court Decision 83Do321 Delivered on February 28, 1984

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Kim Sang-won

Seoul High Court Decision 84No3351 delivered on June 27, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defense counsel of the defendant et al., and the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defendant et al.

The so-called so-called comprehensive one crime constitutes a single crime because several acts constitute a single crime merely because several acts constitute a single crime. Whether several acts constitute a single crime have been repeated by the same intent or several acts with respect to the same legal interest have been conducted inseparably connected to each other. Therefore, the mere fact that a number of acts constituting the elements of a single crime constitute a single crime is premised on the assumption that a number of acts constituting the elements of a single crime constitute the same kind,

According to the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1 was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (special robbery) at the 17th regular military council of June 2, 1983, and its sentence becomes final and conclusive, and Defendant 2 and 3 appealed from the Incheon District Court on June 10, 1983 after being sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment for each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (special robbery) and the Seoul High Court did not recognize the habitual nature of robbery as stipulated in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the judgment below is reversed and the sentence becomes final and conclusive around that time, and there is no reason to recognize the crime of robbery and injury by the defendant, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and there is no difference between the crime of robbery and the crime of robbery under Article 5-4 of the Criminal Act.

2. The same attorney’s ground of appeal No. 2

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s crime of this case was forced by Nonindicted Party’s coercion, and the Defendant, etc. did not make a judgment or make a judgment on the grounds of appeal that the crime was suspended by leaving the scene of the crime before the crime was committed by the upper accused, etc., but the court below erred in incomplete deliberation because it did not meet the reasons. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is obvious that the court below confirmed the facts of the crime committed by the Defendant, etc. on the ground of evidence, and determined that there was no reason for such illegality, such as the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that it is evident that there was no reason for appeal.

3. Defendant 3’s ground of appeal No. 1

If evidence, etc. presented by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below are gathered, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime of this case, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the victim 1's wife was suffered by his own loss, and as determined by the court below, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant 1 suffered by his own loss, etc., and as determined by the court below, Defendant 2 could not escape the crime of robbery since he could not escape the crime of robbery because he could not escape from robbery since he could not escape the crime of robbery because he could not escape from robbery since he had the intention of coprocessing in the crime of robbery even if he did not go through his act.

4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)