A. Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In the case of mistake of facts and injury by robbery by misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B merely offered a victim with a heavy volume of cash and did not open a bid for the injury by robbery, and Defendant A could not have predicted that the injury by robbery would result in the injury by robbery. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the injury by robbery against the above Defendant was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intention, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of the co-offender relationship that two or more persons who conspired to conduct a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant B, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is sufficient if there is an implied communication on the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices, and even if there is no direct evidence, it can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5407, Nov. 23, 2006) If a person among the accomplices in robbery, who committed an assault against the victim in an opportunity for robbery, and inflicted an injury on the victim, there was a contact with another accomplice as to the fact that another accomplice will commit an assault as a means of taking property, and thus, he did not specifically commit an act of assault.

Even if an accomplice is liable for the result of violence, he/she shall be liable as an accomplice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2362 delivered on December 26, 1990, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, Defendant B’s assaulted and threatened Q Q (hereinafter “victim”) at the latest around the time of entering the guest room No. 207, thereby taking the victim’s property.