"Just Pulled Out a Weapon, but the Victim Gave Money First"…Absurd Claim by a 40s Robber

Imprisonment for 3 Years in the Appeal Trial as in the Original Trial

A robber who entered a massage parlor pretending to be a customer and threatened the owner with a weapon to steal cash made the absurd claim that "I only took out the weapon, but the victim gave me the money first," yet he was sentenced to prison again in the appellate court.

On the 30th, the Criminal Division 1 of the Chuncheon Branch of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Min Ji-hyun) dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. A (48), who was charged with special robbery, and sentenced him to three years in prison, the same as the original sentence. Mr. A was prosecuted for entering a massage parlor in Samcheok, Gangwon Province, in the early morning of July 3 last year, pretending to be a customer, threatening the owner Ms. B (60, female) with a weapon, and stealing 400,000 won in cash.

The photo is not related to the specific content of the article.

Investigations revealed that Mr. A committed the crime due to economic difficulties caused by business failure. The Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, which handled the first trial, pointed out, "The defendant prepared a weapon in advance and entered the store operated alone by the victim at night to steal money," adding, "The nature of the crime is very serious." The court also sentenced him to prison, stating, "The victim suffered significant psychological shock from this crime and expressed fear of similar crimes or retaliation."

Mr. A appealed, claiming the sentence was too harsh. He repeatedly argued, "I only took out the weapon, but the victim saw it, got scared, stepped back, said he would give me money, and in a daze, I took the money and ran away." The appellate court reviewing Mr. A's claim criticized, "The defendant's claim that 'I only took out the weapon, but the victim saw it, got scared, and gave me money, so I took it in a daze' is absolutely unacceptable." The court further stated, "The defendant's desperate situation due to business failure cannot justify the crime." Additionally, the court found it hard to believe Mr. A's claim that the crime was impulsive, considering that he changed clothes and fled immediately after the crime, and thus dismissed his appeal.