A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) At the time of the lower judgment, the Defendant is only Co-defendant C, D (hereinafter “C”) and D.

(2) The Defendant cannot be held liable as a co-principal for robbery, since the Defendant assaulted the victim with C and D to commit robbery and did not recognize the fact of taking the victim’s property by force after the assaulting the victim, and C did not anticipate that the crime of robbery was committed. (2) However, the victim’s wife did not receive any treatment, even if he did not receive any treatment, did not interfere with daily life, nor can it be naturally cured due to the lapse of time, and thus, the injury of robbery cannot be deemed as a crime of robbery.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a co-principal who is not a co-principal with respect to the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the conspiracy and conspiracy of the crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and characteristics of the crime, and the possible and anticipated reaction with others in the course of the crime, etc., in light of all the circumstances, such as the means and manner of the crime, the time and characteristics of the place of the crime, and the possibility of contact with others, etc., if the conspiracy and the conspiracy were to have led to the crime committed without reasonable measures sufficient to prevent the occurrence of the crime, and eventually, if the conspiracy and conspiracy were to have led to the crime committed without such reasonable measures, it would have a functional control over the crime.