[1] The relation between the act of larceny and the act of assault and intimidation in the establishment of quasi-Robbery

[2] The case recognizing the crime of injury by robbery in case where the thief was arrested once, but the securing of a new disease is not clear, and thus, the crime of injury by robbery was committed in order to escape the conditions of arrest

[1] Quasi-Robbery is established when a thief commits assault or intimidation for the purpose of resisting property recovery in an opportunity for larceny. Here, the opportunity for larceny here refers to cases where the thief and the victim are present at the scene of larceny and where the victim are linked to the time and place of larceny, and where the victim is likely to arrest the criminal, and where the victim is likely to cause damage to the criminal. In such sense, it constitutes an opportunity for larceny in cases where the victim is under tracking attitude or where the defendant is arrested and it is not deemed that the security of the defendant is certain as he/she has been arrested.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a thief was arrested once, but the security of a new disease is not clear, and thus, the act of assaulting to escape the conditions of arrest during the stage of arrest, and thus, the act of assaulting to escape the opportunity of larceny constitutes the crime of robbery and thus, the act constitutes an injury by robbery.

[1] Article 335 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 335 and 337 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1398, 84Ga214 decided Sep. 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1679) Supreme Court Decision 98Do3321 decided Feb. 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 695)

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Daejeon High Court Decision 2001No348, Manno25 decided July 13, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. 90 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for defense (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and the national defense counsel are also examined.

Quasi-Robbery is established when a thief commits assault or intimidation for the purpose of resisting property recovery in an opportunity for larceny. Here, the opportunity for larceny here refers to cases where the thief and the victim are in the scene of larceny and cases where the thief are connected to the time and place of larceny and where the victim can arrest the offender, where there is a high possibility that the thief might cause the criminal to be destroyed, and in such a sense, the thief is an opportunity for larceny.

According to the relevant evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the defendant was found to have inflicted an injury on the above victim by assaulting the victim in order to escape from the arrested condition while she was released from a thief and delivered to a security office by a security guard her immediately after the escape, and the circumstances are confirmed by the victim, and if the facts are found, the defendant was arrested once, but the defendant was still arrested, and the defendant did so in order to escape from the arrested condition at the stage where the security of new disease cannot be guaranteed, so such act of the defendant was committed by assaulting the victim for the purpose of evading arrest in the opportunity of larceny, and thus constitutes the crime of robbery. The defendant's act of assaulting the victim's face as stated in the crime of the first instance court, which the court below maintained, is "a assaulting the victim's face at one time with the intention of evading the arrest," and it does not admit the relation between the act of assault and robbery and the crime of robbery and the crime of robbery.

On the other hand, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the argument that punishment is too heavy cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)