The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles that the Defendant stolen property at the time and place stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, there was no assault by opening the entrance to the victim with the intent or awareness of assaulting the victim I for the purpose of evading arrest, and even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an assault, it did not reach the extent of suppressing the victim’s resistance.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that since the defendant assaulted the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, this constitutes quasi-Robbery and as long as the victim suffered bodily injury, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of robbery. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of quasi-Robbery and robbery, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether there was the victim’s awareness of assault against the victim, the Defendant was aware that the victim was at the time when the Defendant shut down and shut down the entrance in order to leave the building where the victim committed the larceny, and that the victim was at the time when the building was cut down and shut down immediately after the Defendant got away from the lower court, and eventually, the Defendant was aware that the act of shut down his door and shut down can be the exercise of force against the victim’s body.

I seem to appear.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The defendant is inside the E department store F buildings located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D.