The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of the judgment on the larceny that the defendant stolen three industrial masters in an amount of KRW 6 million at the market price and three packaging machines equivalent to KRW 6 million at the location as stated in paragraph (9) of the judgment of the court below among the facts charged in this case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since only the defendant appealed against this, the part of the judgment below's acquittal was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to escape arrest, the Defendant did not assault the Victim K with the intention of evading arrest. The Defendant was only passive resistance or defensive act in the process of being subjected to violence in a serious manner to view the urine at the site by attaching it to the said victim, etc., and the upper part of the victim suffered by the said victim was also destroyed by breaking the Defendant on the floor.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant actively assaulted and sustained injury with the aim of evading arrest. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, an assault, which is a constituent element of quasi-Robbery under Article 335 of the Criminal Act, is sufficient if it is recognized to be generally and objectively possible as a means of suppressing other party’s resistance, and it does not necessarily necessarily require that the other party’s resistance was threatened, and it should be determined depending on whether it was sufficient to suppress the attack of the arrest in light of the specific circumstances to arrest.

Supreme Court Decision 81Do409 Decided March 24, 1981 and Supreme Court Decision 85Do619 Decided May 14, 1985