All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The Defendant took property from the injured party, and inflicted an injury upon the injured party requiring approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

2) However, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of robbery.

3) Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

B. The Defendant had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing the instant crime, under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant has drinking alcohol more than that of ordinary alcohol in the state of opulous and alcohol dependence.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable for the defendant's wrongful argument in sentencing.

2. Determination:

A. On July 8, 2015, the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the prosecutor’s assertion 1) The Defendant, at around 22:20 on July 22:20, 2015, took the main toilets of the victim D (e.g., 56 years old) located on the second floor of the building, by suppressing the victim’s strokeh from the victim’s strokehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

As a result, the defendant took the property of the victim and suffered injury to the victim for about two weeks, such as the inner part, the light part, the right side part, and the two parts, etc., which require the victim's treatment.

2) According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower judgment, the lower court did not readily conclude that the acquisition of property was conducted immediately after the victim’s assaulted against the victim, but the said assault was conducted as a means of suppressing the victim’s resistance for the purpose of taking the victim’s property, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was a causal relationship between the two parties, and otherwise, the said assault was committed under the criminal intent of taking the property from the beginning.