The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (i.e., the Defendant simply reported the theft at the convenience store of D, and the victim and body fighted with the victim in order to have the victim escape from the defect to attach D and to have the remainder of D, which was the end of the moment, and the victim suffered from the injury in the process, and there was no intention to inflict injury on the victim. Therefore, even though the crime of injury by robbery was not established, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Even though the bodily injury suffered by she was not the injury of the robbery, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below recognized the liability of the crime of robbery and injury to the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is established when the victim inflicts an injury on another person or suffers an injury on another person on an opportunity to commit robbery regardless of the taking or attempted taking of property (Supreme Court Decision 86Do1526, Sept. 23, 1986). Quasi-Robbery is established when the thief uses violence or intimidation for the purpose of evading property from the opportunity of larceny to resist property, etc. In this context, the opportunity for larceny here refers to the case where the thief and the victim are at the site of larceny and where the victim are at the site of larceny and where the victim may arrest the criminal, and where the victim is at a high risk of causing the destruction of the crime, or where the victim is at the location of the thief and the criminal has been arrested and has yet to be guaranteed a new disease, and it constitutes an opportunity for larceny.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5022 Decided July 23, 2009). The court below legitimately adopted it.