The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to view that the victim of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles sustained an injury to the robbery during the course of the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of robbery. 1) In such a case, injury in the crime of robbery refers to the alteration of a victim’s physical condition to a bad condition and the occurrence of a disturbance to his/her living function. If the injured party’s wife is extremely insignificant and does not need treatment, and if the injured party’s daily life is unable to be treated without treatment, and if the injured party’s physical condition is naturally cured due to the passage of time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical condition was changed, or that his/her life function was damaged, and thus, the injury in the crime of robbery cannot be deemed to constitute injury to the victim of robbery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003). 2), examining the body or degree of the injured party’s body suffered in the course of the crime of this case, whether the injured party received the injury in question, whether the treatment was conducted, and the inquiry of the injured party’s body at Han University on the day when the injured hospital was issued.

If the victim suffers from the injury in the course of the crime of this case, the victim is prescribed in the crime of robbery.