The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the first instance court’s conviction of the injury resulting from robbery is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principle regarding injury by robbery, although the injury by robbery does not constitute an injury in the crime of robbery.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, injury in the crime of robbery refers to a change of a victim’s physical health condition to a poor condition, and a disability in his/her living function is caused. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party does not need treatment, and there is no difficulty in daily life and the injured party’s natural treatment can be naturally cured following the passage of the time, the injured party’s physical health condition was changed due to the change of the injured party’s physical condition.

It is difficult to see that there is an obstacle to the function of life or that there is an injury in the crime of robbery.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s physical condition was changed to the victim’s health and the function of life was hindered due to the Defendant’s use of tobacco to the victim K, i.e., taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004). In the process, the Defendant took the Defendant into custody of the victim’s strawing gas gun to straw up the victim’s head, and when the victim’s face and body was cut off to straw up to straw up to straw up, and the victim’s face and body was taken up to 204Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004.

Therefore, it is true.