The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A knife of seized phrases (No. 1) and phrases.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact that the defendant stated in the prosecution that he had intended to commit robbery against women because of the need for money, and in fact that he had occupied the victim's cell phone immediately without returning it, the intention of unlawful acquisition may be sufficiently recognized. However, the court below rejected the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition and acquitted the defendant of special robbery, robbery, injury by robbery, and robbery, which are the primary charges, without reasonable grounds.

The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable, and the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable against the defendant.

The lower court determined ex officio as guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective assault, etc.) among the ancillary facts charged, and applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act to the same, but thereafter, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of Article 26(1)6 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1281, Dec. 30, 2014; 2015Hun-Ba3, 9, 215Hun-Ga3, 2014; 2015Hun-Ga14; 18, 200, 25Hun-Ga; 20, 25 (Joint)) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; 196).