It is difficult to see that Defendant A did not return the cash in the victim H’s wall by only the victim’s statement.

On the ground that it cannot be readily determined that the part of robbery was acquitted.

However, in light of the credibility of the statements made by the victims that Defendant A did not return the cash, and the background leading up to the return of the goods taken by Defendant A from the victim H and the fact that Defendant A took over the goods of the victim H even thereafter, Defendant A may be recognized as the intention of unlawful acquisition of the goods and cash.

Nevertheless, the court below found the charge of robbery not guilty has erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

Sentencing (In relation to the Defendants), the sentence imposed by the lower court (two and half years of imprisonment and confiscation, and two years of suspended sentence in October) is too uneased and unfair.

Defendant

A In light of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the degree of injury suffered by the victim H is insignificant due to the instant crime, and the victim H did not receive any specific treatment other than being disinfected and smoked, thereby incurring injury under the Criminal Act.

It is difficult to see it.

However, the court below found Defendant A guilty of a special injury to Defendant A’s victim H. In this context, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts about the injury under the Criminal Act and misunderstanding the legal principles.

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A, as stated in paragraph 1 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, assaulted and threatened the victim H, thereby suppressing the victim’s resistance.