The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

A seized nib (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

The Defendant, while misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal, or misunderstanding the legal doctrine (abbsoroning robbery), was fully admitted to the facts charged in the lower court (31,34,52 pages of the trial record), and argued for misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine in the first instance trial.

The injury suffered by the victims at the time of the instant allegation 1 is likely to occur during their daily lives and to be naturally cured even without special treatment, and does not constitute “injury” in the crime of robbery.

Even if the second argument also constitutes injury, since the theft took place at a place where 400 meters away from the place where the crime was committed after the completion of theft, this part of the crime against the defendant should be separate from the concurrent crimes of larceny and bodily injury, not from robbery.

Nonetheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the crime constitutes the elements of crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

With regard to the allegation of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the injury of robbery, the injury in the robbery of the relevant legal principles refers to the alteration of the victim's physical health condition and the occurrence of a disturbance to his/her life function.

If there is no need to treat the injured party as the injured party's wife is extremely minor and it does not interfere with the daily life even without receiving the treatment, and if the injured party can naturally recover as a result of the passage of the time, it cannot be said that the injured party's physical health condition has changed due to the injured party's poor condition or it is difficult to view that the injured party's life function has resulted in a disability (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004; 2004Do4437, Jul. 23, 2009>