The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Although the Defendant stolen property at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not injure the victim E or export the victim F for the purpose of evading arrest.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes violence, it cannot be viewed as violence in the crime of robbery since it did not reach the degree of suppressing the victim's resistance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's attempted robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to assault in the crime of robbery or robbery.

2) The Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability or decision-making capacity to discern things due to mental illness, such as depression, shock disorder, and military register walls with respect to alcohol, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court found the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor due to larceny, etc., guilty of all the charges of this case that the Defendant committed the victims for the purpose of taking property again during the repeated crime and evading arrest, and the attempted crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and quasi-Robbery is both established, and the above two crimes are in a commercial concurrent relationship.

The decision was determined.

However, in the case of robbery, it is a crime of larceny which is established with the identity of the thief as the principal agent, and thus, if the crime of robbery is established, thief does not constitute larceny separately.

Article 5-4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, where a criminal defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times due to larceny, etc., and the criminal defendant committed larceny again during the period of repeated crime, and the criminal defendant committed the larceny again.