The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain a theft of the victim's handphone, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant: (a) provided meals at D’s “D” restaurant on October 1, 2012; (b) provided meals with G,O, and to pay the meal cost together with G; (c) was placed in the front of the Defendant at the time when the Defendant and G was located in the calculation unit for the settlement of meal cost; (d) the Defendant’s handphone was placed in the front of the Defendant at the time when the Defendant and G was located in the said calculation unit; (c) the Defendant’s handphone was overlapped with the victim’s handphone; (d) the Defendant’s cellphone was opened on the screen; and (e) the Defendant and the Defendant’s cell phone was sent out of the restaurant; and (e) the Defendant and the Defendant did not appear to have carried out a singing on the 3rd day after having been assigned to the Defendant and the Defendant’s cell phone. On the other hand, the Defendant did not appear to have carried out a sing.