The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the injury caused by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the injury suffered by the victim was naturally cured due to the passage of time, and the degree of the injury was changed to a person’s health condition.

It did not reach the degree of interference with the function of life.

The judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of injury by robbery or injury.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on May 21, 2019, the Defendant: (b) discovered the victim D (the age of 43) while driving a road located in Yansan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B with his driver’s car on May 21, 2019; (c) tried to find out the victim D; (d) to steals the victim’s bank; and (d) to take 500 meters away from the road; and (d) failed to resist the victim’s side, such as the victim, from the back of the victim to the ground; and (d) tried to prevent the victim from resisting the victim’s bank, such as the victim, from moving back the vehicle on the road once again; and (e) tried to take off the victim’s side part attached to the said bank one time at the head of the above bank; and (e) tried to keep the victim from resisting; and (e) tried to keep the victim out of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant strongly withdrawn the victim's property, and suffered injury to the victim, such as cryp dump, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. In full view of the facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is sufficiently consistent with the fact that the victim suffered an injury requiring two-time medical treatment due to the Defendant’s act.