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

Punishment of the crime

On May 21, 2009, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Southern District Court to one year and six months of imprisonment for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on October 13, 2010.

At around 13:30 on June 13, 2013, the Defendant opened a cosmetic room operated by the victim D (Inn, 37 years of age) of the Gu in Ansan-si, the Defendant: (a) opened a cosmetic room in which the victim did not correct the cosmetic in order to take the toilet; (b) taken cash of KRW 200,00 from the wall on the part of the victim, which was located in the display stand, and put 20,000 into the Defendant’s house; and (c) went back from the toilet in front of the cosmetic room, the Defendant committed assault to the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, such as assaulting the victim at one time at the left part; and (d) making the victim’s left part of the cosmetic part one time at the right knekbbbbbb; and (e) inflicted an injury on the left part, etc. requiring medical treatment for approximately two weeks on the left part.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Notification of the verification of an appraisal statement or DNA identification code-related personal information;

1. Seizure records;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Photographss of each on-site and parts of the injury;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification of repeated crimes) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 337 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 337 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel as to the grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Regarding the assertion that quasi-Robbery cannot be seen as violence, the defendant and his defense counsel did not kneee the victim's arms with the victim's left shoulder to catch his left shoulder, but there is no fact that the victim's right-hand bucks are kneeing. Thus, the defendant's defense counsel has kneeing the victim as such.