The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) victim E (hereinafter “victim”) reversed the statement made by the investigative agency that the Defendant posted the victim’s insertion in the court of original instance, but this purport is that it is not correct memory, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the content of the statement made by the investigative agency of the victim is not true.

In addition, it can be recognized that only one defendant's inserted inserted by the victim has committed violence sufficient to suppress arrest's attack power.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that there was no proof to the extent that there was a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant puts a victim into a insertion on the ground that the statement made by the victim's investigative authority to the victim's investigation agency is difficult to believe in light of the victim's legal statement, etc.

The decision was determined.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In particular, at the original trial, seven jurors participated in the whole process of fact-finding and delivered a verdict of innocence by unanimous opinion. Such opinions of jurors must be respected.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not acceptable.

B. 1) Since violence, which constitutes the element of the crime of quasi-Robbery and quasi-Robbery in the crime of robbery, which is the element of the crime of robbery and the crime of quasi-Robbery, is required to be the degree of suppressing people's resistance in the balance with the crime of general robbery, the crime of quasi-Robbery is established only when there is an assault that is generally objectively objectively objectively and objectively, and there is an assault that is sufficient to recognize the degree of suppressing people's intent of arrest or return of property, or that it is sufficient to suppress people's intention of withdrawal (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do193, Apr. 24, 190). This is whether it is sufficient to suppress arrest's attack in light of the specific circumstances where the defendant intended to arrest.