The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The type of force that the Defendant used in the course of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles during the course of theft of the victim's property cannot be seen as an assault to the extent to suppress the victim's resistance from robbery, and thus, the Defendant cannot be viewed as an robbery crime. The Defendant's wife suffered knee is not due to the Defendant's act.

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. In the crime of robbery as to whether there was a force to suppress the victim's resistance, violence in the crime of robbery requires the degree of suppressing the victim's resistance. Whether it is an assault to suppress the victim's resistance should be determined by considering the relation between the victim and the perpetrator, time, place, objective circumstances at the time of the act, the victim's age, gender, etc., and whether it can be resisted if ordinary persons, etc.

In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the victim was unable to find the key gap of the entrance door due to alcohol, but the defendant was unable to drive the victim's shoulder by putting the victim's shoulder up by hand, and the other hand was put into the victim's coke. ② The victim was a victim's walk away from the victim's shoulder. ② The defendant continued to brea the victim's shoulder and tried to get the victim's shoulder back. ③ The defendant got the victim's shoulder back. ③ The defendant got the victim's shoulder back to the front door in the process of cutting the victim's door by hand.

Therefore, the tangible force of the defendant's use of the victim is to suppress the victim's resistance in light of the above judgment criteria.