The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of injury resulting from robbery or misunderstanding of legal principles is not the crime of injury by robbery because the wife suffered by the victim is insignificant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the injury of robbery refers to the injury of a victim’s physical integrity or physiological function as a result of the injury. If a wound accompanied by an assault is extremely minor and there is no need for treatment, so long as it does not interfere with daily life, it shall not constitute the injury of the crime of injury. However, since it is premised on the same degree as the wound that can normally occur during daily life even if there is no assault, it shall be the injury if the wound beyond such degree is caused by the assault. The determination of whether the physical integrity or physiological function of the victim was damaged should not be made objectively and uniformly, but should be made based on the physical and mental detailed conditions, such as the victim’s age, gender, and physical strength, and etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9794, Nov. 13, 2008).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) The defendant shall follow to and from the right of the victim.