The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on April 2015, nor did the Defendant assault and detained the victim.

In addition, the assault and intimidation that the defendant took the victim's money and the cell phone by cutting off the victim's cell phone did not reach the degree of completely suppressing the victim's resistance in light of the degree of the assault and intimidation. There was a claim relation between the victim and the victim, and the reason for cutting off the victim's cell phone is to temporarily keep the victim's cell phone in order to prevent the victim from reporting to the investigation agency. Therefore, the defendant is not a special robbery.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 40 of the Criminal Act provides that a single act shall be sentenced to the punishment stipulated for the most severe crime if it constitutes several crimes. Article 40 of the Criminal Act provides that a single act refers to the case where a single act actually meets the requirements for several crimes. Article 40 of the Criminal Act refers to a case where a single act appears to meet the requirements for several crimes, or where a actual crime is deemed to constitute only one crime. In substance, whether a crime is one crime or several crimes shall be determined after considering the aspect of constituent evaluation and protection of legal interests. The "one act" under Article 40 of the Criminal Act refers to a case where a social concept is evaluated as one act as natural condition regardless of the legal evaluation (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987; 2012Do6503, Aug. 30, 2012).