All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on robbery against victim F, the Defendant was merely a larceny intent, and there was no robbery intent, so the Defendant should be punished as concurrent crimes with the crime of injury resulting from robbery and the attempted crime of robbery. Even if there was an intention of robbery.

Even if the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is established, it should be viewed that the crime is established.

With respect to the robbery of the victim H, the Defendant did not have any fact at the head of the victim H, and the victim H’s wife was frightly generated in the course of taking possession. Therefore, the crime of injury resulting from robbery is established.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As the so-called “Filry” in determining the robbery of the victim F, where the act of theft of property by using force was committed, and where the result of the act of stealing the victim’s resistance with the aim of suppressing the victim’s resistance, it should be deemed that the act was a robbery rather than robbery, and if the exercise of force was to be an objective suppression or resistance of the other party’s resistance in light of social norms, it constitutes an assault in the crime of robbery. However, if the exercise of force is to have the degree of objectively coercing or resisting the other party’s resistance, it constitutes an assault in the crime of robbery, and thus, it constitutes a crime of robbery. The act of continuously leading the victim while taking away property by force while leading the victim, leading the victim to the suppression of the victim’s resistance, and making the victim take property away by force after suppressing the victim’s resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do757, Jul. 27, 2007). 205).