The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

With respect to the person against whom an attachment order is requested, it shall be for a period of ten years.

The main facts of the grounds for appeal and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine by misunderstanding the victim's wife of this case does not constitute injury to the injury resulting from robbery.

The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally weak due to drugs and clothes.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (7 years of imprisonment, 10 years of attachment order) is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of the case of the defendant, the defendant had already asserted the same as the grounds for appeal at the court below. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below, namely, the defendant's use of force to the victim who tried not to pay a house to the defendant, he was diagnosed that the victim needs to receive approximately two weeks of care due to the victim's erode and tensions, and the open wound of knee, etc., the court below determined that the injury suffered by the victim constitutes injury from robbery in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant's use of force to the victim who tried not to pay a house to the defendant; (b) the victim was diagnosed that the victim was in need of approximately two weeks of care due to the erode, kne kne, and kne, and the victim was in blood at both sides; and (c) the victim complained of pain in the police and the prosecutor's office.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, i.e., the victim, at the time of signing a F Council member on October 13, 2017, complained of the pain, and recommended hospitalized treatment at the above hospital. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

The mental and physical weak argument.