The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the defendant’s defense counsel submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the appeal (i.e., May 26, 2016) in the summary of the oral argument (i.e., the wife suffered by the victim regardless of the defendant’s act); (b) the defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss, and thus, there is no relation with the defendant’s act and the wife of the victim; and (c) the victim’s wife’s wife did not constitute “injury” of the injury resulting from robbery due to the

The argument is asserted.

However, this cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal due to the assertion filed after the expiration of the period for submitting the appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, the superior wife suffered by the victim is due to the crime of this case committed by the defendant knife, and the defendant's mental and physical loss is not acknowledged as follows, and the injury caused by robbery is the same as that of the crime of injury, and thus, the defendant's argument

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss as well as intentional robbery, due to extreme damage damage, apprehension, public depression, and excessive use of Alphra, etc.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and mental or physical loss, there is no significant difference in memory and recognition function between the victim, and the victim's knife knife with the victim, and the victim's knife with the defendant, the defendant resisted against the defendant, and the defendant's resistance.