The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The act of a misunderstanding the legal principles by entering five times the victim's hand, etc. with a view to evading arrest constitutes a assault to the extent sufficient to suppress the arrest of the victim, and thus constitutes a crime of quasi-Robbery as prescribed in the crime of quasi-Robbery.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault in quasi-Robbery.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to be sentenced to an unfair sentencing (amounting to KRW 1,500,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 2, 2011, around 21:05, the Defendant: (a) stated the gist of the instant facts charged in the judgment of the lower court; (b) stated the victim’s “E”er of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Victim D’s Operation “E”; (c) stated the victim’s market value of KRW 13,000, which was displayed therein, in his/her own bank; and (d) stated the victim’s two hands, etc. of the victim for the purpose of evading the arrest of his/her arms, and assaulting the victim five times with his/her hand for the purpose of evading arrest.

2) Determination A) Since violence, which is a constituent element of the crime of quasi-Robbery of relevant legal principles and quasi-Robbery, needs to be the degree of suppressing people's resistance against the general robbery in a balanced manner, the crime of quasi-Robbery is established only when there is an objectively objectively arrested person or an assault that may be recognized as an extent of suppressing people's intent to arrest or return property (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do193, Apr. 24, 1990). This is determined depending on whether the attack of arrest is sufficient to suppress people's attack (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do619, May 14, 1985). hereinafter, this case is examined in light of such legal principles.

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of questioning the victim’s grandchildren, etc. did not reach the extent sufficient to suppress the arrest of the victim.

As such, the robbery is charged.