The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One knife knife, one knife, two knife, two knife.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts and omission, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on attempted suspension, since the Defendant renounced the crime of this case as a person who did not have any objective obstacle to continuing the crime of this case, and thus, did not take such measures despite that the Defendant’s crime constitutes attempted suspension.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years, six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute an attempted crime as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, where an act of commission of a crime is commenced and an act of commission of a crime is suspended at one’s own free will before the crime is completed, such suspension shall not be caused by the circumstances that hinder the completion of a crime under the general social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10539, Nov. 10, 201, etc.). The lower court comprehensively admitted and examined the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., the circumstances in its stated reasoning, which are the fact that the Defendant requested money to the victim, but no cash was made at the victim’s home at the time of the request to the victim, and the victim

In full view of the fact that a defective defendant's refusal to inquire about the transfer of the account would make himself/herself refuse to withdraw cash, and thus, he/she would have been likely to make a report in cases where the victim would recover money at the time. In light of the situation, it is difficult for the victim to continue committing the crime in light of the situation at the time, such as where he/she did not have cash, and it is likely that it would be difficult for him/her to continue committing the crime, and thus, he/she is deemed to have committed a more simple crime. As such, the defendant was to stop committing the crime due to external circumstances that interfered with the completion of the crime in light of social norms, and does not constitute suspension of his/her criminal act.