The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was unable to take a smartphone owned by the victim B at the date and place of criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and there was no theft of the victim’s goods.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be concluded that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession at an investigation agency or court of original instance differs from the statement at the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, the determination on the existence of a confession should be made by taking into account whether the contents of the confession’s statement are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among other evidence than the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). Meanwhile, if the confession of the defendant does not have any reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and if there is no reasonable doubt among the motive and process of making the confession, it constitutes evidence that constitutes a manager of another person’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do3847, Jun. 12, 1992).