The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for four years and six months, for Defendant B, and for Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 of the misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles stated that Defendant A was urged by Defendant B and C to injure the victim N and disguisedly pretended to be a robbery. However, at the time of committing the crime, Defendant A was only the intentional injury, did not have the intent to forcibly take the victim’s N’s property, and there was no intention to acquire illegal property.

Defendant

A In accordance with Defendant B and C’s instructions to the effect that “a confirmation as to whether the victim N is a reporter,” the victim N was removed from the wall in order to verify the reporter’s identification after the completion of the injury to the victim N, and did not inflict any injury on the opportunity for robbery.

In addition, the statement of the victim N is not reliable, and the defendant A does not leave the cell phone of the victim N.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B, etc. instigated Defendant C, A, etc. to inflict an injury on the victim N, but did not make the victim N’s reporter card to make a false accusation or to make a false accusation. Defendant B did not aid the victim N to commit robbery or robbery.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C. On February 22, 2018, the reasons for appeal submitted after the lapse of the submission period of the C Statement of Reasons for Appeal will be examined to the extent that it supplements the reasons for appeal.

1) Although Defendant C et al. conspiredd with Defendant A et al. to inflict bodily injury on the victim N, there was no conspiracy to commit robbery, Defendant A et al. could not have predicted that Defendant A et al. took the part of the victim N or the cell phone taking part in the victim N.

In addition, the defendant A et al. cannot be deemed to have inflicted an injury on the victim N in the opportunity of robbery.

Therefore, the crime of robbery against Defendant C is established.