A. At the time of mistake of facts (the part concerning robbery) the Defendant did not use violence or intimidation against the victim E, and even if there was a little of the assault, it was not sufficient to suppress or make it considerably difficult to suppress the victim’s resistance. Moreover, it was erroneous that the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of robbery even though the crime of robbery was not established, since the Defendant did not have any intent to use or dispose of the aforementioned victim’s mobile phone for the purpose of removing photographs taken on the victim’s mobile phone, and did not have any economic intent to use or dispose of the mobile phone.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts were duly adopted and investigated by the evidence that the victim E lawfully adopted and investigated: (i) the victim E was able to drive the vehicle of the victim by making it clear that the traffic accident occurred as the day of stop beyond the intersection; (ii) the victim was able to have the driver get off the vehicle of the victim by making it clear; and (iii) the victim was able to take off the vehicle on the part of the victim on the part of the victim on the ground that he had no sex over the victim’s apology; and (iv) the victim was able to take the breath of the victim’s breath while taking the breath of the Defendant’s assault; and (v) the victim was breath of the victim’s breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the vehicle; and (v) the victim was aware of the victim’s breath of the vehicle.