The crime happened three years ago when the robbers got to hear about a man from outside the community who wanted to buy drugs.
Young people attracted a foreigner who was already unknown to them from Helsinki Central Station by promising to sell him non-existent drugs at a more discriminatory rate. Then they robbed him of the money.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal issued its decision on the robbery in Helsinki in 2017.
The district court had previously sentenced four to either robbery or robbery as a young person, but one of the crowd appealed the verdict to a higher court.
He claimed to have followed with the rest of the crowd not knowing what was happening. Neither court considered the explanation credible.
Proceedings began in early November three years ago, when word spread at the train station that a man from outside the city had more than a thousand euros in money with him and wanted to buy drugs.
The young men lured the man to Pitkänsillanranta by promising to sell drugs. Other people followed the beach. The man was attacked and deprived of 1,500 euros and other property.
The victim of the robbery suffered minor injuries and called the emergency number. Police caught some of the young people from the outskirts of the scene and the victim identified them.
In the District Court of the two defendants over the age of 20, the prosecutor demanded a conviction for the robbery, and for two under the age of 18 at the time of the incident, the prosecutor demanded robbery as a young person. According to the prosecutor, there were other young people involved in the act, who, however, remained unknown.
The district court sentenced adults to seven months probation for robbery and two juveniles to five months probation at the time of commission.
The young man, who appealed the verdict to the Court of Appeal, pleaded that he had not understood what was happening or had taken part in the robbery. However, the victim said that it was this person who would have followed him and caught him before another factor knocked him to the ground.
The Court of Appeal did not believe that the young man could have failed to understand what was going on. The judgment of the District Court remained in force.