The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The length of seized kitchen shall be 32 cm in total length, 19 cm in length.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant has a kitchen knife in a convenience store and has a kitchen knife with the kitchen knife on the table, and demands the victim to pay money.

However, it is not due to the fact that the victim gave money to the defendant, which was ordinarily ordinary, led to the fear of frighting and fears of the defendant, or that there was a suppression of resistance.

In addition, the victim explained that the victim was about KRW 60,00 to the defendant, and brought the above KRW 60,000 from the defendant again, while explaining that the victim was about about KRW 60,00 to the defendant as a special robbery.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's liability for special robbery crimes is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement of the mental appraisal of the defendant of the Medical Treatment and Custody Director by a request for a judgment ex officio, the defendant is diagnosed as a "person suffering from a dead-type injury" with symptoms, such as the damaged net, related circumstances, and the conciliation network, and can be acknowledged as the facts presumed to have occurred at the time of the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant committed the crime of this case under a normal mental condition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below is still subject to determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the degree of assault and intimidation should be to the extent that the other party’s resistance is objectively coercing or not able to resist from social norms. However, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do359 Decided March 23, 2001, etc.