Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant B (Special Robbery)’s act of assaulting and threatening a victim was not a means to forcibly take property.

In addition, Defendant B did not participate in the crime from the victim’s mobile phone and wallet, and came to know of such fact after gathering out the victim’s cell phone, and even if Defendant B was aware of it at the time of Defendant B’s possession of the above objects, it cannot be said that Defendant A conspired to commit a special robbery or intended to commit a joint processing.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, found Defendant B guilty of special robbery.

B. The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In addition, there are special circumstances to exempt the Defendants from the disclosure notification order.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, in a case where rape offenders force the victim’s resistance by assault or intimidation for the purpose of rape and seizes property using the fact that the state of anti-dumping pressure continues to exist, the crime of robbery is established even if there is no new assault or intimidation for taking property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9630, Dec. 9, 2010). The following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court are acknowledged: ① the victim’s face is several times; ② the victim’s pantyty was placed in the victim’s entrance; and the victim was raped after rape; ② the victim took part in the cell phone of the victim and the victim’s cell phone from the police station during the period when the victim was deprived of and accumulated in the hole, and the victim took part in the police station.