The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal seems to have stolen the wallets of the victim while drinking alcohol in the drinking restaurant with the victim. The defendant and the victim moved to a bus stop located approximately 54 meters away from the sugar restaurant.

When the defendant was discovered in order to put the victim on the back part of the bus stop, the defendant injured the victim.

As such, the bus stop in which the defendant injured the victim is 54 meters away from the theft restaurant, which is the theft place, and the time of the injury is close to the theft act and time.

In addition, since one victim continued to be the defendant from the place of theft to the place of injury, the victim was able to report or arrest the defendant at any time when he/she becomes aware of the crime of theft.

Considering these circumstances, the act of the crime of this case constitutes the act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim for the purpose of evading arrest on the opportunity of larceny.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of quasi-Robbery.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the judgment of the lower court of the instant facts charged are as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the H bus stops located in Silung-si C on May 29, 2013 at Silung-si (07:00 on May 29, 2013; and (b) the Defendant, at the backer of

어 그 안에 들어 있던 현금 40만 원을 빼낸 다음, 지갑을 다시 피해자의 바지 뒷주머니에 넣으려 다가, 이를 눈치챈 피해자가 ‘ 소매치기다.

The police tried to commit an injury, i.e., the victim’s face-to-face care in a number of times, i.e., the victim’s face-to-face care, i.e., the victim’s escape.

As a result, the defendant stolen the victim's property and inflicted an injury on the victim for the purpose of evading arrest.