The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Sexual assault against the defendant for 120 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances against the defendant, the punishment imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s lower court recognized the establishment of the crime of injury by robbery and larceny as to the charge of the crime of injury by robbery of this case, by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether the crime of injury by robbery is established, and acquitted the Defendant on the crime of injury

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is established when a person forcibly takes another's property or acquires pecuniary benefits by using sufficient assault or intimidation to suppress another person's resistance. Thus, even though the defendant has committed assault or intimidation sufficient to suppress another person's resistance, the defendant taken another's property by taking advantage of such gaps in order to prevent another person from taking property, and the above assault or intimidation is not used by taking another person's property contingently, and the defendant does not constitute a crime of robbery under the plan of taking property from the beginning, unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is no causation between the two because the defendant's act of assault or intimidation does not constitute acquiring property by taking advantage of the victim's anti-dumping pressure created by such assault or intimidation.

The establishment of robbery should not be denied if it can be evaluated as an act of realizing the criminal intent of taking a single property as a whole or substantially, such as when the two are extremely close or when the two is extremely closely involved.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 4289Do170 Decided August 17, 1956, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10308 Decided January 30, 2009, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do10308, Jan. 30

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

(1) On November 2011, 2011, the Defendant initially fell with the victim of a disaster, but met with a police officer in the middle of 201.