A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) As to the fraud against the victim N, the Defendant’s demand to complete payment to the victim N is limited to KRW 3 to 40 million. As to the special intimidation, the Defendant cited a knife and threatened the victim AF.

(3) As to the damage of property, the defendant had the intention to damage property.

At that time, the defendant cannot be said to have been in flight because the defendant was in flight with a view to facing the defendant, etc., and the defendant's act constitutes an emergency escape.

B. The punishment of 3 years and 6 months sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the remaining evidences of the court below, the court below's determination as to the assertion of mistake as to the fraud against the victim N, which was duly adopted and investigated by the evidence, and the defendant made a statement at the prosecutor's office that he would drink 18 million won from the alcohol house operated by the victim N (No. 553 of the investigation records No. 3 of the investigation records No. 553 of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the year, and the defendant issued the head of the Tong No. 9 million won with the victim N around March 2009. In full view of the following facts, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceiving the victim N and received alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 18310,

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake as to special intimidation, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant carried dangerous articles as stated in the judgment below and threatened AF. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(c)

The background and time of the occurrence of the instant case, which was recognized by the record of the instant case, as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the damage of property.