A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant alleged the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the robbery, and the defendant committed assault against the victim, and the victim seems to have taken a cell phone after the escape, and thus, he was holding it in order to prevent the victim from making a report, and there was no intention of robbery.

The defendant alleged violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry is merely an employee, not an illegal game room business in collusion with F, etc.

The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime of injury and robbery, was in a state of mental disorder due to drinking, but the lower court neglected this.

Judgment

In order to reach the judgment of ex officio, the prosecutor changed the name of the crime of "13 high 264" in the judgment of the court below from the crime of robbery to the crime of bodily injury and robbery, and applied for changes in the indictment to the contents of partial changes in the crime. This court permitted this and changed the object of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's argument in the above grounds of appeal is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

The crime of robbery by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established when the victim takes property of the victim by means of assault and threat to the degree of suppressing the victim's resistance. It is not established only where the victim had been forcibly committed prior to assault and threat. The crime of robbery is established even if the victim took property possessed by the victim by means of assault, such as assault and assault, and assault, and the crime of assault and bodily injury is committed, and even if there is no new assault and threat for taking property in possession of the victim by taking advantage of the fact that the state of suppression of resistance and suppression is still under way, the crime of robbery is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9630, Dec. 9, 2010). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the victim.