A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) considering that there was no employee, the Defendant entered the exchange office of this case because he thought that he did not have any employee, and the excessive excess would not be intended while playing in the middle of the victim's tolerances. Therefore, the Defendant had no intention to injure the victim, and even though there was no possibility of predicting the occurrence of the injury, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that the Defendant was liable for the crime of robbery and injury to the victim.

(2) The court below convicted the defendant of the crime of injury by robbery, although the victim's wife suffered in the course of the crime of this case is extremely minor and does not need to receive treatment, it does not interfere with daily life even without receiving treatment, and it does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery because the victim's physical health condition is not changed due to the passage of time, or because it is difficult to see that the bodily condition of the victim was changed due to the lapse of time, or a disability was caused due to the function of life. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to injury in the crime of injury by robbery.

B. Since the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, the lower court did not recognize it, which erred by misapprehending the fact about mental and physical disability, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 및 법리오해의 주장에 관한 판단 ⑴ 상해의 고의 및 예견가능성 인정 여부 ㈎ 관련 법리 강도상해치상죄는 재물강취의 기수와 미수를 불문하고 범인이 강도범행의 기회에 사람에게 상해를 가하거나 상해를 입게 하면 성립하는 것이다

Supreme Court Decision 198Do458 delivered on April 2, 1986