A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant only took the cell phone used by the victim in order to use the victim’s cell phone, and did not have drawn and drawn the victim’s hand. The victim’s statement that the victim forcedly led about 25 meters from the Defendant to the degree of 25 meters is difficult in view of the fact that there was no external wounds, such as a hole, etc., on the part of the victim’s hand. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the common sense that the Defendant committed an assault to suppress the victim’s resistance because of the change of basin population. In addition, it is difficult for the place indicated in the facts charged to the effect that the Defendant committed an assault to suppress the victim’s resistance. The injury of the victim’s river and tension is merely an intentional occurrence of the victim’s cell phone in order not to get the victim’s cell phone deduction, and the Defendant merely did not have the victim’s intent to use the victim’s cell phone during the process of breathing the victim’s resistance, but merely did not have the victim’s intent to use the victim’s mobile phone.

In other words, the defendant, who acquired a mobile phone, did not immediately flee or did not exercise the coercive power to concentrate on the request for return of the victim, and rather, continued to use and return it in that place. As a result of unexpected circumstances such as the victim's request for assistance to a third party, the defendant left the victim's mobile phone at the place where it remains easily in the surroundings and left the victim's mobile phone at the place where it is seen easily.

3. Nevertheless, the court below committed robbery.