The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and the Defendant thought that they were abandoned houses at the time of the occurrence of the violation of laws and regulations, and infringed upon the victim’s residence, and the victim only assaulted the victim in an anti-surfly manner and did not have the intent of robbery.

Although the defendant intentionally intrudes on the residence of the thief and led to the commencement of the commission of larceny at night, it is not an assault against the victim in order to resist the recovery of property, to escape arrest, or to destroy the trace of the crime, it is not a quasi-Robbery.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant as the crime of robbery, although the defendant cannot be established as the crime of robbery, is erroneous in the misapprehension and application of the relevant statutes.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts and violation of law

A. Relevant legal principles 1) If a robbery offender inflicts bodily injury on another person in an opportunity for robbery, the crime of robbery under the former part of Article 337 of the Criminal Act is the basis for the crime of robbery under the former part of Article 337 of the Criminal Act. In this case, the seizure of property does not necessarily require the acceptance (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2492, Feb. 9, 198). In addition, “Robbery” under Article 337 of the Criminal Act includes not only the simple robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act, but also the robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do3043, Jan. 24, 1984). 2) Robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is established by force taking another person’s property or acquiring pecuniary benefits by assault or intimidation sufficient to suppress a person’s resistance without the victim’s intention, and thus, the defendant is closely threatened with the victim’s property suppression under the overall situation and substantial pressure.