The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In addition, there was no intention to commit robbery against the defendant as well as there was no assault or intimidation against the defendant to the extent that the defendant constitutes a crime of robbery.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below recognized special robbery.

The sentence of the court below's improper sentencing (a 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

With respect to the assertion of robbery, the crime of robbery under Article 333 of the Criminal Act is established by taking another person's property or acquiring pecuniary benefits by using sufficient assault or threat to suppress a person's resistance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10308, Jan. 30, 2009). The crime of robbery is established under the subjective requirement that the defendant forcibly takes another's property or obtains pecuniary benefits as a subjective element. In other words, the defendant has the intention of robbery. In the event the defendant denies the criminal intent of robbery, the subjective element of the crime of robbery is inevitable to prove indirect facts having substantial relevance with the intention. In this case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation with the robbery is based on normal empirical rule, the court below should reasonably determine the connection status of the crime by carrying a secret observation or analysis force based on the normal empirical rule, and based on the victim's social pressure or analysis force, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7878, Mar. 26, 2004).

The decision was determined.

A thorough examination of the records by the evidence duly admitted by the court below in accordance with the above legal principles.