The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In relation to the robbery in the judgment of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, it is true that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim C as stated in this part of the facts charged, and driving the E-si (hereinafter “the instant taxi”) owned by the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) operated by the said victim. However, the Defendant did not assault the victim C by his intent to forcibly take advantage of the instant taxi and the drugs located therein, but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s assault by the Defendant did not have committed an assault against the victim C, and that the Defendant’s assault by force or resisting the victim’s resistance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. At the time of committing the instant robbery, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness, under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is unfair.

Judgment

A. The crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is established by taking another person’s property or acquiring pecuniary benefits by using sufficient assault or intimidation to suppress a person’s resistance. As such, in a case where the defendant took assault or intimidation sufficient to suppress another person’s resistance against the latter and then the defendant takes another’s property contingently by using the gap in the situation where the defendant takes another’s property by making use of such gap in the situation where the defendant takes another’s property.

However, the crime of robbery may be established in cases where it can be assessed as an act of realizing the criminal intent of taking a single property in whole or substantially, such as the situation of suppression of resistance by violence or intimidation was planned from the beginning, or where both parties were extremely closely in time (see Supreme Court Decision 209Da1348, Jan. 30, 2009).