A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on injury resulting from robbery and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the injury inflicted by the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) cannot be deemed as an injury resulting from robbery, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on injury resulting from robbery.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant reflects his wrong, etc., the sentence of the original court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant committed an assault against the victim by putting the shoulder part of the victim in order to be exempted from the payment of the drinking value at the time of the instant case, tightly tightly tightly tightly leashing the bridge into the floor, cutting the victim's neck on the body of the victim, cutting the victim's neck, cutting the victim's neck, blocking the victim's hand, and blocking the victim's hand.

However, the injury in the crime of robbery refers to the alteration of the victim's physical health condition to a poor condition and the occurrence of a disability in his/her life function. However, if the victim's bodily condition is extremely minor and the victim's bodily condition does not require treatment, and it does not interfere with daily life even if the victim's bodily condition is extremely minor and does not receive treatment, and if the victim's physical health condition is naturally cured after the lapse of the time, the victim's physical health condition was changed

Inasmuch as it is difficult to see that the injury was caused by or caused by the function of life, it cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do5925, Jan. 11, 2002; 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004). As to whether the Defendant assaulted the victim to the victim for about two weeks of treatment, and thereby, led to the following evidence: