1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;

3. With respect to a person for whom an attachment order is requested;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “defendants”) do not intrude into the purpose of robbery, but do not assault or threaten the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, and the victim’s upper state is naturally able to recover, and thus, cannot be deemed as a legal injury. Thus, the crime of injury by robbery is not established.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장에 대하여 1 피고인이 강도의 목적으로 침입한 것이 아니고, 체포를 면탈할 목적으로 피해자를 폭행하거나 협박한 것도 아니라는 주장에 대하여 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하면, 피고인은 돈을 절취하기 위해 피해자의 주거지에 침입하였다가 피해자와 마주쳤고, 이에 놀란 피해자가 소리를 지르자, 피해자의 입을 막고 목을 조른 채 피해자를 안방 벽으로 밀치며 “소리치지 마라. 소리치지 않으면 해치지 않는다.”라고 말한 사실, 이어 피고인은 피해자를 침대로 넘어뜨린 다음 침대 위에 있던 이불로 피해자의 얼굴을 덮어씌웠다가 다시 들춘 후 피해자에게 신고하지 말라고 한 다음 출입문을 열고 밖으로 나간 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts, the defendant invaded with the victim's intention of larceny, and assaulted and threatened the victim for the purpose of evading arrest, and the degree of such assault and intimidation is sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance.

Therefore, the defendant's crime of attempted robbery is established at least.

Considering the legislative purport of Article 335 of the Criminal Code, balance between the crime of robbery and robbery, it is necessary to judge whether the crime of quasi-Robbery is based on the acceptance of larceny.