The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding or legal reasoning that quasi-Robbery 1) quasi-Robbery 1) and the consistent statement of the victim and the husband of the victim and the defendant did not return money to the victim even after the crime of this case, the defendant's intention is obvious that the injured party intended to appropriate the money used for his own repayment of the borrowed money, and the defendant refused the victim's request to return the money and assaulted the victim, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had a purpose of resisting illegal acquisition intent or cash withdrawal in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that the Defendant had the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition or to resist cash recovery as stated in this part of the facts charged.

have been proved to the extent that the person

On the ground that it is insufficient to view the Defendant as the quasi-Robbery, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition of robbery, etc., which led to the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the victim’s consistent statement, written diagnosis of injury, and the fact that the Defendant committed considerable assault against the victim, the fact that the instant injury occurred due to the Defendant’s assault can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of the Defendant’s injury on the ground that there is insufficient proof as to the Defendant’s injury caused by Defendant’s assault. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too excessive.