The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year and six months) of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case where a single act practically satisfies several elements of an appeal constitutes a common competition relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act. The case where a single act here means one act, regardless of the legal evaluation, can be evaluated as a condition of the nature of an object in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 delivered on February 24, 1987). Of the facts stated in the judgment below, robbery was committed by the defendant, who forced the defendant to put his hand into the victim's clothes (brokes) and deducted 90,000 won in cash that the victim left. In the case of indecent acts by compulsion, the defendant put his hand into the victim's clothes as above and the victim's breast part was cut.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant put his hand in his clothes to force the victim's money.

In a series of processes, it can be seen that the victim's chest was inevitably delivered in the victim's chest, and that it was not an indecent act separately from the forcibly committed act.

Therefore, the crime of robbery and the crime of indecent act by compulsion constitute a single act because the two satisfies the unity and identity of the act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal, and the judgment of the court below is again decided following pleadings.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence is identical to each of the judgments of the court below, so it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.