The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the first instance court that recognized the injury inflicted on the victim and that the defendant was guilty of the injury inflicted on robbery as stated in its holding even though the victim was injured and the victim was stolen, the defendant did not have any intention to commit robbery, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

C. The first sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's authority is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the previous name of the crime was examined by the prosecutor from "injury by robbery" to "Robbery," and the applicable provisions of law to "Article 337 of the Criminal Act" to "Article 33 and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as stated in the facts charged as follows (the grounds for the judgment to be dismissed). Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment by the court of first instance was no longer maintained.

There are such reasons for ex officio reversal in the judgment of the first instance.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and mental disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

3. The crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act in determining the assertion of mistake of facts is established by taking another person’s property or acquiring pecuniary benefits by using sufficient assault or intimidation to suppress a person’s resistance. As such, in a case where the defendant, without the robbery, has committed violence against the accomplices to the extent sufficient to suppress the victim’s resistance with the crime of robbery, and where the accomplices have taken the victim’s property during the crime of assaulting the victim to the extent sufficient to suppress the victim’s resistance, the crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is committed by taking the victim’s property in whole and in substance close to the situation of