The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The first instance judgment (a quasi-Robbery) Defendant was “The victim was outside of the bridge that he/she intends to go beyond the Defendant, but faces with the Defendant’s bridge.”

“A person who was assaulted by the victim K rather than by the victim K

The statements made by the victim, which seem to correspond to the facts charged, are difficult to recognize credibility, and there is no other objective evidence, such as CCTV images.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the defendant's statement made in an investigative agency as a confession, and misunderstanding the victim's statement that has no credibility as evidence to reinforce the victim's statement

Recognizing facts, there is an error due to mistake.

Sentencing: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (in the first instance court in the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance in the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts: In full view of the following facts and the circumstances revealed therefrom, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, at the time, was in a situation where the defendant was arrested from the victim K, and that the defendant committed assault by breaking the part of the victim's platform in order to evade the arrest, due to the fact that the defendant was exposed to the situation where the defendant was arrested from the victim K.

On such premise, the judgment of the court below that recognized the liability for the crime of robbery against the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

After the commission of the instant crime, K is present at the investigative agency to enter the victim K’s statement in the written statement “I am going to walk on the right side of his/her right bridge in order to continue to string, and escape” (as it is written in the number of 19 pages hereinafter referred to as “the investigation record”);

In the context of this investigation, the defendant is running away from the alley.