The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

On June 11, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch (2009 Gohap65), and appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, mental or physical weakness, and unfair sentencing.

On October 29, 2009, the court reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the defendant to two years of imprisonment (the Gwangju High Court Decision 2009No. 196, hereinafter "the judgment subject to a retrial") and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2009.

The Defendant filed a petition for retrial against the judgment subject to a retrial with this court.

On May 2, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there was a reason for the review under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act in the judgment subject to a new trial. The decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive at that time

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not intend to steal the Victim’s Nompt North Korea at the time and time as stated in paragraph (1) of the original facts of the crime in the judgment, and (2) was the victim because it was difficult to conceal him/her as a type of abandonment at the time of committing the crime as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the original judgment, and did not inflict an injury on the victim by exercising a serious tangible power to the extent prescribed in the robbery with a view to evading arrest on the opportunity of larceny.

The judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant, who has not claimed mental and physical weakness, committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression, etc., the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed the said crime under normal conditions.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (4 years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. Determination.