A seized rubber net (Evidence No. 1), a stock farm (Evidence No. 2), and a man-made clothes.

The Defendant assumes a total amount of KRW 35 million with a loan company, etc., and was suffering from living conditions, such as daily work without a certain occupation, since he left office around April 2014, and was unable to receive a fixed wage, the Defendant paid money from a convenience store managed by the victim F (30 years of age) of high school-friendly job offering.

On February 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) laid a rubber net ( approximately KRW 35cm in total length and approximately 5cm in diameter) and sought money from a rubber net (around 03:37 on February 29, 2016; (b) entered a H convenience store managed by a person who is damaged by G in opticalyang-si; (c) discovered a victim who is arranged in a warehouse of convenience store; and (d) sought money from the rubber net; (c) however, the Defendant did not bring the victim’s resistance and mast to the wind that other customers enter.

As a result, the defendant committed an attempted withdrawal of the victim's property by taking the victim's property into account, and the victim suffered approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. A medical certificate with respect to F;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Relevant Article 337 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 337 of the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 53 and 55(1)3 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code of Confiscation is that the defendant and his defense counsel found the target to be unsatisfyed without a sudden satching since the defendant's unsatisfying of wage, and caused the victim's injury. Thus, the defendant only attempted to injure the victim, and there was no intention to commit robbery.

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the following circumstances in view of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted by the court, the Defendant’s criminal intent is the robbery.