All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principle, each item and brick used for the crime of this case are not objects made for the original purpose of killing or destroying, but they constitute objects with a deadly weapon in light of the method of use.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted the charges of quasi-special robbery.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the court below determined as follows. "The defendant stolen the victim C's bags as stated in the judgment of the court below, and committed violence to the victim with the purpose of evading arrest, such as breaking the items of a deadly weapon, breaking the victim's neck, and breaking the shouldering gate."

It is recognized that the fact that the defendant gets the victim with the each timber on the roadside floor attached to the victim and putting the shoulder brick.

However, in light of the fact that each of the above items is about 65 cm in length, 20 cm in thickness, 8 cm in width, 6 cm in length, and 6 cm in length, and that the defendant was displaying or cutting each item at a place less than 3-4 meters away from the victim in order to prevent the victim from approaching the victim in the course of escape, it is difficult to view that each of the above items or the brick is a dangerous object with the degree of risk corresponding to those made for the purpose of destroying the victim's lives by social norms.

Referencely, the Criminal Act clearly separates a deadly weapon and dangerous object, and the penal laws and regulations shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4175, Jun. 14, 2012). Based on these legal principles, the lower court is based on such legal doctrine