All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. We examine the arguments presented by the defense counsel of Defendant A after the misapprehension of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of the grounds for appeal.

1) Defendant B did not have inflicted an injury on the victim F.

2) The time when the Defendants inflicted an injury on the victim F is the time when the Defendants had already completed the act of theft, and thus, the crime of robbery cannot be established against the Defendants, and only the crime of larceny and the bodily injury caused by assault can be established.

B) After committing the instant crime, the victim F was diagnosed only that the victim F was required to undergo a 14-day medical treatment at a hospital, but did not actually undergo a medical treatment. Therefore, the injury suffered by the said victim cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (three years and six months for each imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, whether Defendant B injured the victim F, or not, Defendant B also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, acknowledged that Defendant B sustained an injury to the victim F at the time of the instant crime, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning.

The decision was determined.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant B.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of Defendant B’s argument.

2) The Defendants alleged to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the opportunity for larceny. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 11th son of the judgment.