The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant abused the victim by means of evading the obligation to pay taxi charges, and as a result, the defendant was transferred from the person who suffered damage to property interest since he/she evaded the aforementioned obligation.

Recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the injury of robbery is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of probation, two years of protection observation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order in October) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, committed an assault as stated in the above paragraph (1) to the victim and thereby exempted the victim from paying the taxi fee of KRW 6,200, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount, and suffered injury to the victim for approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

2) Based on the legal principles and circumstances set forth in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant abused the victim by means of evading the obligation to pay taxi charges on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to see the defendant's assaulting the victim that he/she was transferred from the victim of economic benefits beyond simply temporarily avoiding the trend of the obligation to pay taxi charges.

In addition, it is difficult to view this part of the facts charged, and judged the not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the grounds for appeal.