The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles found the defendant who stolen property and tried to prevent the defendant from escape. However, it is unreasonable for the court below to find the defendant not guilty of the injury resulting from robbery by misapprehending the legal principles on the injury resulting from robbery, even though the defendant assaulted E by means of opening a door for the purpose of evading arrest, and causing multiple kinds of injury, such as 10 days of treatment, such as dives, salt, etc.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Since violence or intimidation, which is a constituent element of the crime of statutory or quasi-Robbery related to the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, is required to be the degree of suppressing a person's resistance in the balance with the crime of general robbery, there should be violence or intimidation which can be deemed to be an extent of suppressing the person's intention of arrest or return of property objectively, objectively and objectively, or that the crime of quasi-Robbery is established.

The lower court determined that the crime of injury resulting from robbery cannot be established on the premise that the Defendant constituted quasi-Robbery, in light of the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so doing, the lower court determined that the crime of injury resulting from robbery in the instant case, which is premised on the premise that the Defendant constituted quasi-Robbery, was not established.

When the defendant was discovered to the victim E, the defendant was faced with the victim E, and the above entrance was pushed off in the course of escape through the front door of the entrance entrance where the victim E was the victim E.

In addition to the above entrance at the time of the instant case, there was no way for the Defendant to flee, and the Defendant appears to have taken the entrance door out of the house, and it merely appears to have been an act to get out of the house, and it does not appear to be an act to exercise the direct tangible power against the victim E.

The defendant's entrance was relatively positive.