A. In relation to the crime of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not suppress the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) against the victim’s resistance or make it impossible to resist, and even if the Defendant made intimidation, there is no relation between intimidation and the taking of property.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. In full view of the fact that the criminal defendant committed each of the instant crimes and there is no record of criminal punishment, the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine reveals the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant was able to know by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court: (a) the Defendant’s sexual intercourse was defective after the visit of the victim; (b) the Defendant refused the visit of the victim; (c) the victim refused to pay money; and (d) the Defendant paid a large amount of voice by getting out of the situation; (b) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant was able to prevent the victim from suffering with one’s hand; and (d) the victim was frighted into the victim’s body; (e) the victim was frighted into the victim; and (e) the Ministry of Justice had the victim’s birth, E; and (e) the Defendant continued to rape the victim by threatening the victim; and (e) the victim was able to ask the victim for money under the condition of blocking the victim’s cell phone while the victim gave 300,000 won to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s body should have denied the victim’s body before rape.