A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of robbery 1) The Defendant received money from the victims to receive a return of the credit card at his own discretion without the consent of the Defendant, and cannot be deemed to have had the intent of unlawful acquisition by the Defendant at the time of the crime of this case. Since the degree of assault and intimidation committed by the Defendant is insignificant, the degree of assault and intimidation committed by the Defendant did not reach assault and intimidation in the crime of robbery.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

C. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the accused (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c) the board;

A. In the court of first instance, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles has the same argument as in the grounds for appeal, and the court of first instance has rejected the above argument in detail with the argument of the defense counsel under the title "decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the above judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of injury by robbery and robbery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the record of judgment on the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of the defendant's behavior, words, etc. before and after the crime of this case, the defendant is in a state of drinking.