The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below are all reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and by a fine of thirty million won.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

As to the facts constituting the crime of misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant did not assault S in the opinion of the court below, but later requested S to continue to pay the money despite the president who would have been repaid. ② At that time, the defendant did not pose a threat that S has a knife because he did not possess the knife at that time. ③ After S assaulted S, he did not pay the money, but did not go against S with the face of S with the money already received from S., and as it was merely between the money inside the vehicle, S did not have a criminal intent of taking advantage of his intention, and there was no causal relationship between assault and taking property.

As to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not intimidation as stated in the facts charged.

Each sentence imposed by the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the prosecutor of the first instance judgment on the defendant is too uncomfortable.

After the first and second original courts have completed a separate review of the defendant respectively, the first and second original court sentenced the defendant to three years of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won, and the second and second original court sentenced to one year of imprisonment. The defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgment against the prosecutor, who filed an appeal against the first and second original judgment, and this court decided to consolidate the two appeals cases.

However, each judgment of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be determined within the scope of punishment aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was all reversed.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still a ground for reversal of authority as seen above.