The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

The number of disposable vinyls that have been seized shall be one even number.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In accepting money and valuables, the Defendant of mistake of facts only covered the victim with a double cover, and caused 2,3 times the victim’s head to be lightly 2, and did not assault the victim.

B. The injury suffered by the victim of a misapprehension of the legal doctrine is merely a naturally cured extent and does not constitute an injury to the crime of robbery.

C. The first sentence on the unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim, at the time of the police investigation, took cash after leaving his/her head with his/her head, and later took a spacker, and stated that the spacker Defendant had his/her head covered by his/her spacker and escaped, and the details of the statement were specific, and the victim did not appear to have any circumstance to make the Defendant make a false and unfavorable statement; and (ii) the Defendant made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement at the time of the prosecutor investigation and the first instance court also took full account of the following facts: (a) the Defendant committed an assault against the victim by spacker while taking money and valuables over from the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the Defendant committed an assault against the victim by his/her head with his/her spacker.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, injury in the crime of robbery refers to the alteration of the victim’s physical health condition, and the occurrence of an impediment to the function of life.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5022 Decided July 23, 2009). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, such as the statement of the diagnosis against the victim, etc.