The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, did not have the intention of taking a cell phone of the victim B, because he did not want to take the cell phone of the victim B.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime with mental and physical weakness, the Defendant took the mentally and physically weak clothes.

The alcohol was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking.

(c)

The sentence of the court below which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there are no objective grounds to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment in the lower court, and the lower court convicted him/her of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the items of “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” as stated in the said judgment.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous in the judgment of the court or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and no other objective reason exists that may affect the formation of evidences in the course of the trial of this court.

The defendant's assertion that there is an error of mistake in fact in the judgment of the court below is not accepted (the defendant was assaulted during the process of arrest, and the investigation agency urged the defendant to make a false statement in the course of investigating the defendant, or allowed the defendant to have a liver or unmanned on the suspect interrogation protocol, but the record is attached.