The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are naturally cured even without being treated, and as such, it is minor to the extent that it does not interfere with daily life, the crime of injury by robbery does not constitute injury.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental suffering from drinking.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court. In full view of all the circumstances, the lower court determined that: (i) the Defendant used the victim’s physical force, such as shacking the victim into the floor by pushing the victim; (ii) the victim was diagnosed by the doctor H of the above hospital “any other strings and unexplosion of detailed details; (iii) the victim was diagnosed by the strings, other strings and unexplodedings of other details; (ii) the strings and unexplosions of other details; and (iii) the victim was diagnosed by the above hospital doctor H of the above hospital; and (iv) the victim was diagnosed with the right strings as the roof; and (b) the victim was treated by booming the right blue part; and (iii) the victim was administered with the blue part of the right blue part; and (iii) there were no errors in the determination of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

B. Examining the related legal principles and records as to the claim of mental disability, the judgment below is just in holding that the defendant did not seem to have had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and there is an error of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.