All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below convicting the victim H of the injury resulting from robbery (defendant B) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the injury was not caused to the daily life of the victim and the victim did not require any special treatment for recovery and thus cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery.

B. In light of the fact that there was no criminal conviction against the Defendants (the Defendants) and that the Defendants agreed with the victims and conflict with their depth, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants for three and a half years to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, the defendants planned to take money and valuables from the victim He under the influence of alcohol by force, and the defendants B, who walked the victim's face one time at once and walked with his arms, and walked with his body by leaving the body. The defendant A deducted the money and valuables owned by the victim. Accordingly, the victim was found to have suffered a wound of the head and the part of the body and suffered a wound to the degree of the skin.

Although the victim was not issued a medical certificate of injury at the hospital, in light of the circumstance and degree of the victim's assaulted, the part and degree of the injury, etc. revealed in the above recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the victim caused a poor health situation and a defect in the function of life due to such circumstance. Thus, the above body of the victim constitutes the injury constituting the crime of robbery.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that there was no previous conviction against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and that there was favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ agreement with the victim and their depth against the victim.

However, the crime of this case is drunk.