All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A seized knife.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (abbroon injury) the Defendant purchased a ticket from the victim G and H that 4,00,000 won of money can be ancillary to money, and subsequently lost money. The Defendant demanded the victims to return the above purchase price of KRW 4,00,000,000 to the victims, and the victims were inflicted contingent injury in the course of returning it. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intention or intention of unlawful acquisition.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, and confiscation for 2 years and 10 months, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

(b)the sentence sentenced to the Defendant by the second instance judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, this Court decided to hold a concurrent trial by examining the appeal cases of the judgment below. Each of these offenses in the judgment below against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be determined within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, all of the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant asserted in the first instance court that “The Defendant did not have any intention to obtain robbery or illegal acquisition, and constitutes a justifiable act, self-help, or excessive self-help” to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

On this basis, the court of first instance held that the defendant conspireds with F to assault and intimidation the victims' resistance in collusion with F.