1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

2. The punishment against Defendant A shall be three years and six months.

Judgment of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles

A. Defendant B, C, and E did not take part in the crime of robbery resulting in robbery by other accomplices except Defendant G. In addition, the Defendants did not force the victim to take a dynamic photograph. 2) The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.

In light of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment and the circumstances revealed therefrom, and found the Defendants guilty on the ground that the Defendants committed robbery, injury (excluding the Defendant A) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion) as stated in the facts charged in the instant case without any reasonable doubt.

Examining the facts admitted by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, a thorough comparison with the facts admitted by the court below, the judgment of the court below on this part is justified and it was clearly erroneous in the examination of evidence.

There is no reasonable ground to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidence in the trial process of this court.

The Defendants’ assertion is not accepted.

B. Defendant A(1) The Prosecutor’s assertion that Defendant A had a heavy impact on the victim as well as other accomplices at the scene of the robbery injury crime, and thus, it is recognized as a co-principal of the robbery injury. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in so determining. 2) The lower court determined that the Defendant directly assaults the victim, or did not take the victim’s goods, and the Defendant committed the robbery injury with other co-defendants.