The Bottle in the Backpack: Classifying Violence After a Completed Theft
At 21:40 you are riding with a patrol unit when a 112 call reports a shoplifting in progress at a convenience store. By the time you arrive, the sequence is already reconstructable from CCTV, the store's point-of-sale log and witness statements.
A, 19, put two bottles of whisky (retail KRW 84,000) into his backpack at 21:33, walked past the counter without paying, and left. The clerk, B, 52, followed him about 250 metres along the street shouting 'stop, thief.' At 21:36 A turned, pushed B hard in the chest with both hands, and B fell backwards off a low step, fracturing his left wrist and striking his head; the injury is later assessed as requiring eight weeks of treatment. A ran and was stopped at 21:52 in a nearby alley. One bottle broke in the bag; the other was recovered.
A's first words to the arresting officer were: 'I panicked and pushed him, I only wanted to get away.' At the station A asked to telephone his mother before saying anything more. The desk officer told him to wait, and at 23:10 took a written statement in which A said he 'did not remember pushing anyone.' No lawyer was present. A has no prior record.
1. Classify A's conduct and identify the single most serious offence the facts support. Explain each element you must prove and the timing questions that decide the classification.
Read the worked answer
The classification turns on two questions: when the taking was complete, and what purpose the violence served.
Theft was complete at 21:33. Appropriation occurs when the goods pass into the offender's de facto control, which happens when the bottles go into the backpack and A walks past the point of sale and out of the store. There is therefore no question of an attempt only.
Robbery is not made out. Robbery requires that the violence or intimidation be the means of taking the property, so the intent to use force must exist at the moment of taking. A formed that intent only after B had chased him; the taking was already finished.
Quasi-robbery is the correct frame. It covers a thief who, after the taking, uses violence to resist recovery of the property or to escape. Two points are decisive. First, the doctrine does not require a completed theft; an attempted theft would suffice, so A's completed theft plainly qualifies. Second, there must be temporal and spatial continuity between the taking and the violence. Three minutes and 250 metres, with B in continuous pursuit and shouting, is inside that continuity; a fresh transaction or a break in pursuit would fall outside it.
Because the push caused a fracture requiring eight weeks of treatment, the result is injury, not mere assault, so the charge is quasi-robbery causing injury (Criminal Act art. 335 read with art. 337). The value of the goods is irrelevant to classification, and the broken bottle is a consequence rather than a separate aggravating element.
2. A's written statement was taken at 23:10. Assess its admissibility and state what the prosecution must establish.
Read the worked answer
This is a procedural question, not a question of the statement's weight.
Before any interrogation of a suspect, the investigating officer must inform him of the right to refuse to make statements and of the right to have counsel participate in the interrogation, and must give him a genuine opportunity to arrange counsel. A request to telephone a family member is not automatically a request for counsel, but the statutory scheme requires the notice to be given and a real chance to consult before a written statement is taken.
On these facts the sequence is wrong. A asked to call his mother at the point where the interview would begin; he was told to wait; the written statement was then taken at 23:10; and only afterwards, at some later point in the record, is the counsel notice accounted for. Waiting out a suspect who has asked to contact someone, then taking a statement without counsel and without a recorded, signed notice, is a violation of the notification rules.
The consequence is exclusion. A statement taken in breach of those rules cannot be used as evidence against the accused, and the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the notice was properly given and voluntarily waived. A court will look at the suspect's statement record, the time printed on the rights-notice form, whether A signed it, whether he asked for a lawyer, and whether an audio-visual recording exists.
Practical step for the report: record the exact time of the request, the exact time of the notice, and who was present. If the notice was in fact given and signed before 23:10, the statement may survive; if not, the case must rest on the CCTV and B's testimony.