A. Whether the Defendant constitutes “Assault” or not was a flicked with the victim, and was punished by a flick with the victim. In the process, the blicking of the victim was merely a flicked flick.

It can not be said that it is an assault to the extent that it would suppress the victim's resistance or make the victim unable to resist.

B. Whether the instant crime constitutes “injury” or “injury” was committed by the victim during the commission of the instant crime, but the degree of such injury does not cause any inconvenience in daily life due to minor degree, nor is it possible to recover nature, and thus, cannot be deemed as an injury to the robbery.

2. Determination:

A. 1) In the crime of robbery, the degree of assault and intimidation should be objectively to the extent that the other party’s resistance or resisting from social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do359, Mar. 23, 2001; 2004Do437, Oct. 28, 2004) is acknowledged by the court of first instance by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance as follows. In other words, the victim was not a victim who was lawfully adopted by the investigative agency at the time of his/her death and injury, but a victim was not a victim who was unable to take a blag because he/she was able to take a blag with his/her seat, she was able to take a blag with his/her hand, and was able to kill him/her at the time of his/her death and her blag.