A. In fact, the Defendant’s entry into “F Schlage”, “I Mart”, and “Ler” as stated in the judgment of the court below was not for robbery but for the purpose of drinking alcohol simply, but for the purpose of drinking alcohol. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all facts charged (the charges of preliminary robbery and robbery) by misunderstanding that the Defendant entered each of the above locations for robbery. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing robbery as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol at the time of committing robbery.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the fact that the defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged (the charges of preliminary robbery and robbery) at the court below, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of robbery and robbery in the judgment of the court below is sufficiently recognized. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the following: (a) the process and content of each of the instant crimes committed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency; and (d) the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(c)

The crime of injury to robbery of this case committed by the defendant is subject to the crime of small-scale a woman being mixed with the purpose of preparing living expenses.