All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

According to the misunderstanding of the facts as to the robbery of Defendant B’s robbery and the misunderstanding of the legal principles and the statement by J and A, the court did not pay the money in which the Defendant had paid to J money at the time of the date and time stated in the facts charged.

In light of the facts of the Defendant’s sound delivery, the Defendant’s intention, namely, the intent to acquire the money that the Defendant had at the time of assaulting J, is clear that the Defendant had an intention to acquire, at the time of assaulting J, the money that the J and A had taken in line with his/her face, left the J and A out of the open room, and left the open room, and the J and A have already returned to his/her back to the house.

On the contrary, the court below found the defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Defendant

It is sufficiently recognized that Defendants B and B had attempted to work in a street store, not as well as to help Defendant B to work in a street store. In full view of the evidence of this case, including the statements of J, K, and Q, the Defendants threatened J, thereby passing up the amount of money earned by J as a business for street occupation.

On the contrary, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 million won of fine, and 1 million won of fine) is too uneasible.

Judgment

Defendant

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the robbery B, the lower court determined by the evidence used.