The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of the Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the victim suffered injuries, such as “influorites of the elbow,” “influorites and tensions of the bluorum,” and “other detailed obscure arms constitute “influoring and tensions of the bones parts,” which are the elements of the crime of robbery, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby not constituting “influoring” which is the element of the crime of robbery, which is the element of the crime of robbery.

The decision was determined.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (Defendant A: three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended sentence, two years and six years of suspended sentence, and four years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendants conspired to attract victimized women as if they were to remain under the conditions by using smartphone display; and (b) to forcibly accept money and valuables.

The Defendants wish to remain at the E parking lot located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on December 5, 2015 only through the "Ethalphone flance", at around 03:22, 2015.

The victim F (n, 20 years old) was the victim F.

Defendant

A A was driving the victim at a speed of 70 to 80 km per hour at the time when the victim is aboard at the head of G A-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn, and the defendant B was hiding on the back seat of the above vehicle, asked

At this time, Defendant A was punished by the victim “I am, I am, and I am.”

C. It is not easy to make a tax base, if it is within the tax base.

After suppressing the victim's resistance, the victim's victim's resistance 8,50,000 won of the market value of Samsung gallon, e.g., e., e. 5,000 won, and the victim who caused the misunderstanding that the defendant A had found the police vehicle, followed the balk, followed by the balk, thereby moving the car door to the road.

Accordingly, the defendants jointly do the property of the victim.