The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the wife suffered by misunderstanding of the legal principles is extremely minor and thus does not interfere with daily life and can be naturally cured, and thus does not constitute the injury resulting from robbery.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the injured party's injury caused by robbery constituted injury caused by robbery, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant was in the process of suppressing the victim during the instant crime, and that the Defendant did not have to receive treatment in the same degree as that of a wound that could normally occur during his daily life, or that there was no need to receive treatment in extremely minor circumstances, and that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant could not be naturally cured upon the passage of the time.

B. 1) In the crime of robbery, injury refers to the alteration of a victim’s physical condition to a bad condition, and the occurrence of a disturbance in his/her life function. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party’s wife does not need to receive treatment, and if the injured party’s body does not have any difficulty in daily life and can be naturally cured due to the passage of the time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical condition was changed, or that his/her life function was hindered, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s bodily condition was changed or that the injured party’s life was hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003). This legal doctrine is an injury of robbery.