The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) (1) In the case of nighttime larceny, the victim’s cell phone was taken by recognizing the victim’s cell phone as the Defendant, and there was no criminal intent for the larceny. (2) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability under the influence of alcohol

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant had a criminal intent of larceny on the ground that: (a) the Defendant was guilty of larceny; (b) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he was aware of why he had the victim’s mobile phone at the time of police and prosecutor’s investigation; (c) the Defendant was aware that he was aware of the victim’s mobile phone at the time of the second interrogation; and (d) the Defendant was working until the date of the instant case in the victim’s operation restaurant; (b) it is difficult for the Defendant to easily understand the victim’s mobile phone; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s mobile phone at the time of the instant crime. Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is acceptable; and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal. According to the record as to mental and physical disability, each of the Defendant appears to have the ability to drink at the time of the instant crime, but did not change in the method and circumstances before or after the instant crime.

This part of the grounds for appeal is also asserted.