The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s defense counsel, by misapprehending the legal principles, withdrawn at the first trial date the allegation that there was no intention to evade arrest.

A victim B is a thief who is the same as the defendant and is not a person at the location of returning property from the defendant or arresting the defendant, and thus cannot be the other party of intimidation in the crime of robbery.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on quasi-Robbery.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of three years and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, “a quasi-Robbery” under Article 335 of the Criminal Act is established when a thief commits assault or intimidation in order to resist the recovery of stolen property, to evade arrest or to destroy a trace of the crime, and its purpose is only an element of subjective constituent elements, and thus, it is not relevant to the establishment of the crime of quasi-Robbery.

In the establishment of quasi-Robbery, if the thief has committed assault and intimidation for the purpose mentioned above, it is sufficient that the thief has intended to arrest the other party of the intimidation, or that he has started to arrest him.

In addition, a person who is not likely to interfere with a larceny itself, such as this case, may be a case of another larceny offender or a case of a child, etc.

D. As can be the object of quasi-Robbery of “the purpose of destroying the trace of the crime,” it is difficult to view that the above provision, which stiffly listed the above purpose, intends to return property from the thief offender or limit the other party of the thief to a person who is in the position of arresting the thief offender, for the crime of quasi-Robbery.

Therefore, the other party of assault is the victim of intimidation.