A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The extent of assault and intimidation by a defendant committed by the victim does not reach the extent of suppressing the victim’s resistance, and thus, no crime of robbery is established. Although the defendant’s defense counsel asserts it in the summary of pleadings submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, the defendant’s defense counsel argues it in the summary of pleadings, but this part of his argument in the grounds for appeal is in dispute of the establishment of robbery as a whole, and this part of his argument is also considered to be the grounds for appeal. 2) The defendant’s act at the time of breacing the victim’s cellular phone is not for chilling the victim’s cellular phone, and thus, the defendant’s act constitutes the

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the first argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as follows; ① at the time of the crime, while the vehicle was traveling at night, there was little person who passed the vehicle, and ② the defendant was scambling off the knife of the knife with the knife knife in order to prevent his identity from being exposed, and ② the defendant requested the victim to get off the phone of the victim and get off the cell phone of the victim, and the victim was using a deadly weapon, such as the victim's knife when the victim can turn off the knife, and the victim's knife with the victim's cell phone. ③ The victim did not scambling the victim's knife at the time of the crime, but scambling the death of the defendant's act. ④ The defendant was a woman's body.