The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Prosecutor's Appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) committed a significant robbery when the victim was faced with an injury, which was issued in close vicinity to the date and time of the crime; and (b) the part and degree of the injury, which could sufficiently occur if the victim met with the drinking arrangement; and (c) even though the victim could sufficiently be recognized as having suffered the injury of “Patop” due to the instant crime, the lower court excluded the part of the indictment of this case, which was erroneous. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of protection observation) is too uneasible and unfair.

Prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on the street before the Busan Central City Mayor around 18:00 on September 25, 2016; (b) on the street, the Defendant made a speech to a female under the name of a woman selling coffee; and (c) made a payment for a trial, without the victim E (52) without any justifiable reason, the Defendant: (a) called maritha; (b) but (c) was maritha, a female under the influence of maritha; (d) however, (e) was fritha, a female under the influence of matha while taking a bath to fritha; and (e) the victim’s face was frithatha, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

B. According to the sentencing investigation, the lower court held that: (a) according to the sentencing investigation, the victim did not take treatment or take medicine at the hospital in relation to the instant crime; (b) the written confirmation of payment of medical expenses submitted by the victim was a document irrelevant to the instant crime; and (c) according to the medical records, the victim’s act was conducted on April 24, 2015, which was much earlier than the instant crime; and (b) the part of the Abdog part of the written diagnosis of injury was not trustable.

In light of the facts stated in the instant crime, the part of the “Abea Gu” among the instant criminal facts.