The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or legal principles: (a) the Defendant: (a) heard the victim’s statement that he would “I am unable to reproduce”; and (b) assaulted the victim’s statement on the victim’s statement that he would cause confusion; (c) reported the victim’s clurbing back from the floor only after having pushed the victim, and used it as a clurbing back; and (d) there was no criminal intent of robbery; (b) the upper part of the victim’s body suffered from the Defendant’s robbery with the Defendant’s robbery, even if he did not receive any treatment, would naturally be naturally cured; and (c) there was no impediment to daily life; and (d) it does not constitute a crime of robbery.

B. The Defendant, who is mentally and physically weak, committed the instant robbery in a state that he lacks the ability to make a decision on his will due to the influence of clothes and driving at a long time.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (five years of imprisonment, additional collection of 50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion that there was no intention to commit robbery, 1) the Defendant had the criminal intent of robbery at the time of committing the robbery of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

A) The Defendant, in the course of assaulting the victim at the prosecution, brought the victim’s abundance by reporting the victim’s abundance and taking the victim’s abundance.

At the same time, the court stated to the effect that the robbery was the criminal intent, and the court below did not actively dispute the fact that the robbery had been intentional, not the planned crime but the contingent crime.

B) The Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim, such as booming the victim’s timber, and the act of booming the victim’s clurf.