The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Among the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the damage suffered by the victim B due to robbery is extremely minor and thus need not be treated, and even without being treated, it does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery since it does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery since it does not constitute a crime of robbery, since it does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery, since it does not interfere

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of injury by robbery refers to the injury of a victim’s body completeness or physiological function. In a case where a wound accompanied by an assault is extremely minor and there is no need for treatment, and thus there is no difficulty in natural therapy and daily life, it may be deemed that the crime of injury does not constitute the injury. However, this is premised on the same degree as the wound that may normally occur during daily life even if there is no assault. Therefore, if a wound beyond such degree is caused by assault, it constitutes injury. Determination of whether the physical integrity or physiological function of the victim was damaged, not objective and uniform determination, should be made on the basis of physical and mental detailed condition, such as the victim’s age and gender, and physical and mental condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Do4958, Sept. 13, 2018; 2014Do1726, Apr. 10, 2014).

Therefore, it is true.