The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 13, 2012, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of robbery, despite the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant committed an act with the cell phone equipment owned by the victim as a means of a two crisis in the case of the defendant, and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition of the cell phone equipment, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the main reason why the defendant, at around 23:00 on November 13, 2012, took one mobile phone device owned by the victim from the victim's cell phone number, such as husband and her husband, son, etc. stored in the victim's cell phone device, is to threaten the victim to find out and threaten the victim's telephone number so that the victim does not leave the defendant. However, in light of the fact that the defendant was aware of the victim's husband and her husband, her child, etc., and the defendant was still keeping the victim's cell phone device without returning it to the victim, the defendant can be fully recognized with the intent of using and disposing of the victim's cell phone device as his/her own property.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Examining the various sentencing conditions of the instant case regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant has led to the confession of most of the instant criminal facts, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and no criminal record heavier than the fine.

However, the defendant did not have frequent violence of the victim living together for about 1 year and 11 months.