A misunderstanding of facts (the defendant) the defendant did not steals the victim's cell phone and other things owned by the victim under the influence of alcohol on the bus stops, and only brought about the victim's cell phone under the influence of the events and the identification card on the case.

The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment), the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The trial of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding facts was conducted as a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes, and the witness C was examined, and the seven jurors were convicted of all the charges of this case by unanimous decision.

Although the court below again adopted the victim C as a witness and examined the witness in addition to F again in the trial, the victim C’s testimony is consistent and the contents of F’s testimony as stated in the original trial, and there are no direct relations with this case, so it is difficult to see that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to clearly oppose the lower court.

Furthermore, if we look at the following circumstances, such as the reasoning of the court below which is admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant heard that the victim's mobile phone bet with the cell phone level, found the victim's mobile phone, and argued that the victim's mobile phone case contains an identification card, two card, one-half card, and one-half card.

However, the victim has consistently set up a level of flat cell phone as vibration, from the investigative agency to the court of the trial.