All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentence of the lower court against Defendant A, B, and B (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and Defendant B: 4 years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) In fact, the victim’s injury by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine was naturally cured even if not specially treated, and the state of health was modified to the extent that the daily life was obstructed and the state of health was inferior.

As such, the crime of robbery cannot be seen as injury.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C, which was unfair in sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment), is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and Defendant A’s ex officio determination as to Defendant A’s assertion is not sufficient to suppress the victim’s resistance or make it extremely difficult to suppress the victim’s intimidation after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and thus, the victim’s injury does not constitute a intimidation in the crime of robbery. The victim’s injury does not constitute the injury of robbery.

Since the defendant C's appeal is asserted, it will be judged ex officio on the defendant A's argument with the reasons for appeal.

1) In the crime of robbery with regard to whether the Defendants’ act constitutes a intimidation in the crime of robbery, the degree of assault and intimidation must be to such an extent as to objectively suppress, or make it impossible to resist the other party’s resistance in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do359, Mar. 23, 2001; 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004). Examining in light of the foregoing legal principles by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the assault and intimidation committed by the Defendants to the victim is deemed to be the degree to prevent or make it impossible to resist the victim’s resistance objectively in light of social norms.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

① This case.