All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

With respect to the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery as stated in the first instance judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant, since the act by the defendant alone does not constitute an assault to the extent that generally objectively and objectively control the victim's intent to arrest the victim, the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is not established.

Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending legal principles in finding guilty of the injury resulting from robbery.

Each sentence sentenced to the defendant by the first, second, and third judge (the second judge: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and the second judge: imprisonment for eight months and the third judge: imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced to the defendant by the second instance judgment of the prosecutor (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

When the judgment of the court below on the defendant's discretionary judgment was rendered, the prosecutor appealed against each judgment of the court below, and the court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

The judgment of the court below on each of the offenses against the defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot avoid the whole reversal.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio.

The Defendant also asserted the above in the first instance court.

Based on the relevant legal doctrine (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8535 Decided September 9, 2010), the lower court: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the gender, age, height, and weight of the Defendant and the victim AM (hereinafter referred to as “victim”); and (b) the background, degree, and result of the Defendant’s assault; and (c) exercised sufficient assault to suppress the Defendant’s attackive power against the victim.

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

In addition to the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance court duly adopted.