A. Defendant 1) Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant 1 was aware of the facts about the instant case [2017 order 3593], and the Defendant alleged to be 40,000 won by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and was drinking with the victim. However, the victim reported to 112 at the convenience store near the Defendant, because the victim frighted his own organized violence, it was merely reported to 112 at the convenience store near the Defendant, and did not intend to take the victim by taking the victim’s 40,000 won by receiving the alcohol and the alcohol equivalent to 40,000 won at the market price, and there was no assault against the victim

2) The Defendant alleged mental or physical weakness in the judgment of the court below of first instance was suffering from adaptation disorder and non-social personality disorder, which show depression and apprehension symptoms, and was a mental and physical disorder which does not control part of his behavior. The instant crime was committed under the state of mental or physical weakness.

3) The punishment of each court below (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one month, ten months, and second instance court: the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (the judgment of the court below No. 1) misperting the facts as to the acquittal portion, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles by viewing that the admissibility of each of the statements made by the victim T cannot be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thereby misunderstanding facts by violating the rules of evidence.

2) The sentence of the lower court, which is unfair, is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The argument of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated in the court below's ex officio reversal decision.

However, the court of first instance held that each sentence of imprisonment with prison labor and the second sentence of fine were imposed, and where each sentence of the court below is different from that of imprisonment with prison labor and fines, the appellate court can maintain the respective sentence sentenced by the court of appeal even if arguments were combined in the appellate court, and it does not necessarily require the sentence of a same kind of punishment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio on the sole ground of the consolidation itself, and both appeals are appealed.