A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this ruling became final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The clothes of the clothing collection box brought by the defendant are the goods which the original owner renounces his ownership, and cannot be deemed the goods of another person which are the objects of larceny. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the objects of larceny. 2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the objects of larceny.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged that the defendant intentionally received the victim in order to escape from arrest. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

3) The injury inflicted on the victim is extremely minor to the extent that it does not need treatment, and thus cannot be deemed as injury to robbery. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) declared by the Defendant on the ground of appeal by the Defendant is too unreasonable. 2. The prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant ex officio. The prosecutor is in violation of the Punishment of Larceny and Violence, etc. Act (collective injury, etc.) among the names of the crimes, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the applicable provisions of law is changed into Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1) and 329 of the Criminal Act, and applied for the amendment of the Act on Larceny and Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective injury, etc. as the facts charged by changing it to a group or deadly weapon, and the lower court was no longer subject to the permission.

3...