A. At the time of the instant case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the degree of assault inflicted on the victim by the Defendant did not reach the degree of assault in the crime of robbery, and the Defendant did not assault the victim in the motive of evading or taking the taxi expenses, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent to inflict an injury on the Defendant in relation to the shocking of the victim by a taxi.

Moreover, in this case, the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim, driving a taxi, and shocking the victim into a taxi is all contingent, and the above three acts constitute a separate crime and do not constitute a single robbery.

B. In the event that the Defendant was drunk at the time of committing the instant robbery and injury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principle on the grounds for mitigation of liability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of robbery in determining the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the degree of assault and intimidation must be such that the other party's resistance should be prevented or unable to resist objectively under social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7601 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant, around 00:00 on April 18, 2013, on the day of the instant case, was boarding a taxi drivinged by the victim at around 00:35 on April 18, 2013, which is the day of the instant case, and disputed the victim's face at one time on the front day of the 2852-way moving 2852. The victim, who gets off the instant taxi, also went to the victim by getting off the taxi from the said taxi according to the victim, and the victim took part in the driver's seat of the instant taxi by the head sentence of the taxi.