The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are arrested the victim, etc., and the defendant is only pro-friendly in the state of pressure, and there is no assault against the victim, such as walking the part of the victim G's bridge.

Even though the defendant's body gets her body, the defendant's her body she was faced with the above victim's bridge.

Even if the defendant did not have the intention of assault, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had the intention of assault.

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

2. Determination:

A. 1) In light of the above legal principle, the assault, which is a constituent element of the crime of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Act, is a way to suppress the other party's resistance in a balance with the degree of assault under Article 333 of the same Act, namely, the means to suppress the other party's resistance. It is sufficient to such an extent as deemed objectively possible, and it must be determined depending on whether it is sufficient to suppress the attack power of arrest in light of the specific circumstances to arrest the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do619, May 14, 1985). It does not necessarily require that the court below has prevented the attack practically (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2230, May 29, 2008). In light of the above legal principle, it is legitimate in the court below's finding that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's attempt to commit the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the type and degree of assault against the victim, etc.

(e).