A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of fact-finding, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant conspiredd with the victim C to receive money and valuables from the victim C.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged: (a) around June 26, 2015, at around 21:00, the alcohol house called “L” in the vicinity of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K to sell marijuana to “C”

After inducing the victim, "the person who takes away money or goods by threatening the victim by threatening the victim", the defendant conspireds with A to force the victim by assaulting the victim with A when the defendant entices the victim, and prepares a special robbery.

2) In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s statement made by the police that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is difficult to believe, and that the Defendant’s statement that deemed the Defendant to be aware of this part of the facts charged may be deemed to mean that the Defendant had attempted to commit robbery or attack, not robbery, and that the Defendant had attempted to commit robbery together with A.

It can not be readily concluded, and even if the Defendant and A have divided this part of the facts charged, the phrase “a person who obtains money from C” was “a person who obtains money from C.”

Even if the statement of the Defendant and A alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant prepared the camping hole as a tool for robbery or there was an external act that is a requisite for the establishment of the crime of preparation for robbery, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, this part of the facts charged was determined to constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime.

3) The Prosecutor of this Court did not submit any further evidence in the first instance.

Even after closely examining the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was in mind for the defendant to commit robbery with A.