The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that a defendant collected a glass bottle was aimed at reducing the fare to a certain extent by showing it to the victim in the event of a dispute over the issue of the victim who is a taxi driver and the taxi rate. Therefore, there was no intention of robbery or illegal acquisition, and the defendant was immediately forced from the victim of the victim of the said glass bottle, and thus, it does not constitute assault and threat of robbery. The victim's wife was in the process of cutting off the glass bottle of the defendant's glass bottle, and thus, the victim's wife cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of robbery.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in the instant case, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of injury by robbery, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, a mentally and physically handicapped, had been living in a old room for about 2 weeks immediately before the instant case, and had no food for the 3 days immediately preceding the instant case, and the victim, a taxi driver, was committing the instant crime on a timely basis, on the ground that he/she committed the instant crime, he/she should be deemed to have been in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the instant case.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The lower court did not dispute the entire facts charged in this case, including this part of the facts charged, and recognized all the facts charged, but subsequently raised such assertion at the trial. 2) In a case where the Defendant did not make a statement as to whether to recognize the facts charged or refused to make a statement, it cannot be determined as materials disadvantageous to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not exercise the right to refuse to make a