The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

As a matter of course, misunderstanding the facts of the defendant's grounds of appeal and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the words, which the defendant first shown a knife to the victim, were merely the content of his own knife, and the second knife with the knife, and the victim did not speak. After a considerable time, it is only that the victim issued money to the defendant's thought that the defendant's attitude might be dangerous

Therefore, the defendant's act of presenting knife to the victim does not constitute a means to deduct money and valuables, and ② even if so, it is so.

However, the degree of intimidation cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of intimidation required in the crime of robbery under the Criminal Act. ③ The victim cannot be deemed to have delivered the money under the influence of the victim’s intention.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of intimidation in the crime of robbery, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the charges of special robbery of this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The degree of assault and intimidation in the crime of robbery on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be to be such an extent as to suppress or make it impossible to resist the other party’s resistance objectively in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do359, Mar. 23, 2001). In addition, the force of robbery in the crime of robbery refers to the suppression of the victim’s intent against the victim’s will in a situation where it is impossible to resist (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do91, Mar. 28, 1995). In full view of the following facts recognized by the court below lawfully adopted and investigated by the court below, and the circumstances revealed therefrom, the defendant exercised intimidation to the extent that it could suppress the victim’s intent.