The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) although the defendant entered the place where the victim resides in, but did not commence the commission of larceny; (b) even if the victim's wife was extremely minor and does not receive treatment, it does not interfere with daily life; and (c) it does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery because it is merely naturally cured upon the lapse of the time, and thus does not constitute a crime of injury by robbery; and (c) even though the victim's use of serious violence during the process of suppressing the defendant, thereby not falling under assault to the extent that he could suppress the arrest of the victim, the court below erred by misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the crime of injury by robbery or robbery, thereby finding the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① The victim consistently stated in the police and the prosecutor’s office that “the defendant was a defendant who opened a sexual harassment in the night room and examined the proposal.” The court below stated that “the defendant was in front of the clothes, and the defendant was in hand in hand.” The statement in the court of the court of the court below was already agreed upon by the defendant and was in contact with the defendant even though the defendant did not want to be punished, and ② even according to the defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, there was approximately two to three minutes of the victim’s accommodation. The defendant’s assertion that the defendant had been in two distances in the night room during that period was difficult to believe.” In light of all circumstances, the defendant’s act of infringing the victim’s de facto control over the victim’s property located in the night room is close.