The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The facts charged of the instant case reveals that “the Defendant: (a) inducedd the victim who was requested by the victim to pay the alcohol value of KRW 2.60,000 from the alcohol house operated by the victim D on August 3, 2013; (b) induced the victim to a sculpt subsequent to the F apartment near the victim; and (c) entices the victim into a sculping part of the victim by sculing the victim’s shoulder by tightly cutting down the sculing the sculf, cutting down the sculbing part of the victim’s body, cutting down the sculbing part of the victim’s body; and (d) escaped so as to prevent the victim from resisting due to the sculfing of the victim’s face; and (c) thereby, exempted the payment of the alcohol value of KRW 2.60,000,00,00,000.”

B. As to this, the lower court found the victim guilty of the injury resulting from robbery by deeming that the injury does not constitute injury in the crime of robbery, and rendered a judgment of not guilty of the crime of robbery, on the ground that the identity of the facts charged is recognized and the defendant does not cause any substantial disadvantage to the defendant’s right of defense, thereby changing the last part of the facts charged to “the defendant exempted the victim from paying the amount of KRW 260,000,000 which should be paid to the victim, thereby obtaining economic benefits equivalent to

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 335 of the Criminal Act provides that a quasi-Robbery may be established in cases where “thief” commits violence or intimidation in order to resist recovery of stolen property, to escape arrest or to destroy the trace of the crime. Therefore, the subject of quasi-Robbery is a thief and is the object of larceny.

B. Criminal facts acknowledged by the court below are the drinking value that the defendant should pay to the victim.