However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

① On CCTV images taken the instant site, the Defendant moved to the location of the victim who was frightened, and then moved to a new site after taking what he/she was on the wall of the victim, while the victim was frightened.

(Evidence No. 15-20). (2) In the police, the Defendant stated at the police that “The victim calculated the one-lane drinking value, and asked whether the money is the same as that of the victim. At that time, the victim did not bring a credit card to the credit card, thereby giving a drinking value to the cash on the wall. On the other hand, the Defendant stated at the police that “The date is cash on the wall, and the cash on the wall is frighted.”

(See No. 27 of the Evidence Records). On this issue, the victim stated at the police that “The drinking value was calculated by the Defendant. The Defendant was the introduction and printing place on the basis that the Defendant was dead. He did not drink the drinking on that day. The Defendant is unable to calculate the drinking value, and the Defendant was asked whether the drinking value cannot be calculated at all. The Defendant would be calculated at all. I would not say that the Defendant would be able to take cash at the wall if the drinking is withdrawn. I stated that “I had a credit card at that time.”

(증거기록 제38~39면). 당시 피해자가 신용카드 등으로 술값을 계산하거나 보탤 수 있었음에도 피고인에게 자신의 지갑 속 현금을 꺼내 계산하게 하였다는 것은 이해하기 어려운 점, 피해자가 술값을 보태기로...