A. At the time of assaulting the victims, the Defendant believed that C did not know whether C had the intent to commit robbery at the time, and that C did not simply assault the victims who had attempted to commit robbery.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit robbery, and there is no fact that he conspireded to commit robbery with C.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also presented the same argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

B. Determination of the unjust assertion of sentencing is that the Defendant recognized all the remaining parts of the instant crime except the part causing robbery, and the Defendant took part in the crime according to C’s instruction and did not appear to have received the property taken by force separately. The victims are not subject to the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victims, and the Defendant’s family members and family members also want to take part in the Defendant’s prior action.

However, considering the fact that the crime of this case committed by the defendant in collusion with his accomplices for a long time and took advantage of the property and property benefits by assaulting the three victims, and that all the victims suffered relatively heavy injuries in need of at least four weeks of medical treatment, it seems that the nature of the crime was serious and that the victims suffered emotional impulses were very serious.

In addition, the Defendant committed the instant crime.