The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal doctrine 1) Although the Defendant had invaded upon the victims’ residence at night and colors the property, the Defendant committed assault to the extent of suppressing the victims’ resistance for the purpose of evading arrest on the ground that the victims who put himself/herself in the course of escape have been passive and repeated.

It is difficult to see it.

2) The injury suffered by the victims due to the Defendant’s assault cannot be deemed as the injury to the crime of injury resulting from robbery merely because it does not interfere with daily life due to extremely minor and may be naturally cured.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

In the facts charged by the prosecutor in the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the contents of the indictment "as the part of the charge, which changed the victim E into approximately two weeks of elbbow in order to "as the victim E is in need of approximately two weeks of treatment," and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since the case was changed by this court's permission.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below, despite the above reasons for reversal.

B. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to whether a crime of quasi-Robbery constitutes an assault in the crime of quasi-Robbery (A) The degree of assault and intimidation as a means necessary for the establishment of the crime of quasi-Robbery of the relevant legal doctrine is to the extent that it is deemed possible in general and objective manner as a means to suppress the other party’s resistance, and it does not necessarily require that the lower court has unlawfully prevented a resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do409, Mar. 24, 1981). B) The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, following the examination.