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. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, did not assault the victim to escape the payment of taxi expenses, as the victim, who was a taxi engineer, committed an assault against the victim while under the influence of alcohol, and thus did not commit robbery.

Therefore, in the process, the injured person suffered injury.

Even if the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery.

B. The Defendant, who was mentally and physically weak, committed the instant crime under a state of mental and physical weakness due to excessive drinking.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of factual mistake 1) The crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is established by taking another’s property or acquiring pecuniary benefits by taking advantage of sufficient assault or intimidation to suppress a person’s resistance. Thus, even though the assault or intimidation was not used as a means of taking property or acquiring pecuniary benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10308, Jan. 30, 2009), the crime of robbery cannot be established if the assault or intimidation was not used as a means of taking property or acquiring pecuniary benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10308, Jan. 30, 200). The lower court, based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, (i) the Defendant took a bath while making a statement from the damaged person when leaving a taxi, and (ii) the Defendant did not clearly demand the victim to pay the cost of the instant taxi when the Defendant reported the assault to the police after leaving the taxi.