55 days from among days of detention pending the judgment in this case shall be included in the principal sentence.

The defense counsel's appeal of this case requires violence or intimidation necessary for the establishment of the crime of quasi-Robbery to the extent of suppressing a person's resistance against the crime of robbery. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that victims have been assault or intimidation as mentioned above. Thus, the original judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of quasi-Robbery or in judgment of conviction without clear evidence. However, the degree of intimidation as a means necessary for the establishment of quasi-Robbery as stipulated in Article 335 of the Criminal Act is limited to the extent that it is recognized that it can be generally and objectively possible as a means of suppressing the other party's resistance, and it does not necessarily require an actual suppression of resistance. The date and time of each decision of the court below, and at the same time and place of the defendant's decision, there is a threat as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the victim who was try to arrest the defendant for the purpose of evading the arrest. Considering evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to recognize the defendant's legal reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)