The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Act, which is a constituent element of the crime of quasi-Robbery, is sufficient if it is deemed generally and objectively possible as a means to suppress other party's resistance, i.e., suppression of resistance, and this should be determined depending on whether it is sufficient to suppress arrest's attack in light of the specific circumstances in order to arrest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do619, May 14, 1985). The court below reversed the judgment of the first instance which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the crime of quasi-Robbery among the facts charged in this case cannot be deemed to have committed an assault to the extent to suppress victim D's resistance, and therefore, it does not constitute an assault in the crime of quasi-Robbery, on the ground that it does not constitute an assault in the crime of quasi-Robbery, and ex officio, recognized the defendant guilty of the larceny and the assault contained in this part of the charges

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and there was no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault in the crime of robbery.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.