The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The result of the instant crime, such as mistake of fact, is sufficient to change the victim’s physical and health condition to the extent that the injury caused by the instant crime constitutes an injury resulting from robbery, or interfere with the function of life.

Even though it is difficult to see it as a crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of robbery as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, etc., injury refers to the alteration of the victim’s physical condition to a poor condition and the function of life is hindered. If the injured party’s body is extremely minor and the injured party’s body needs not be treated without treatment, and if the injured party’s body’s condition does not interfere with his daily life, and the injured party’s physical condition is naturally cured upon the lapse of the time, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s physical condition was changed or that the injured party’s life was hindered, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the injured party’s injury was committed in the crime of robbery (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2313, Jul. 11, 2003; 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 204). The court below duly admitted the evidence as follows: (i) the Defendant, without any specific occupation, has taken the victim’s body s/he left the body and left the body of the injured party with his/her chest, and has his/her chest away the victim’s body.