The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no fact that the defendant in mistake of facts has caused the victim's left part and the right part of the buckbucks.

Without the intent of assaulting a victim, the Defendant merely fell out of the body of clothes attached to the victim, and did not go beyond the bounds of assault, since the Defendant’s clothes, cut, and teared by the Defendant, which saw the victim, lose the balance of force.

The common part of the victim's left side is not caused by the assault of the defendant.

The act of the Defendant in misunderstanding the legal doctrine does not constitute “brupt violence to the extent that it may suppress other party’s resistance,” which is an assault against quasi-Robbery.

The injury of the victim does not constitute an injury to the robbery.

The victim's arms and bucks are considerably unfilled so that it does not interfere with the daily life due to a hole on the part of the victim's arms and bucks, and the bucks of the victim's arms are merely a part of the bucks arising from the use of the bucks that were not well used in the flat while suppressing the defendant.

The imprisonment with labor (three years and six months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the court below found the fact that the defendant: (a) sealed the entrance; (b) escaped; (c) caused the victim to go out of the entrance; and (d) caused the victim by hand in order to cut off the clothes attached to the victim's knee, etc.; and (c) caused the victim's hand and knee, etc.; and (d) caused the victim's hand and the right buckbucks to the left left part; (c) the victim caused the hole on the left part and the right buckbucks; and (d) the victim suffered from the highest pain caused by the shock of the entrance, and (e) caused the victim to receive treatment.

Therefore, the defendant's assaulted the victim, and caused the victim's bodily injury, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The defendant, who suffered from the defendant's selling of the victim, is guilty.