The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, finds out the cellular phone, wallets, etc. owned by the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) who is far away from the long distance during his returning home under the influence of alcohol at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and does not have committed violence against the victim and taken the above property by force. The victim’s statement is not reliable for the following reasons, and there is no evidence proving that the Defendant was guilty, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts, which found the Defendant guilty

1) The victim stated that he/she was fluoring the victim, and that he/she was a fluoring person, but he/she was also fluoring person other than the defendant at that time when he/she was fluoring. Furthermore, if the offender was fluoring on face, the victim does not properly regard the face of the offender. The statement that the offender was fluoring on such eye does not constitute an important element that can readily readily conclude the defendant as the offender because the shape of the body is shaking. In addition, it is doubtful how the victim could accurately report and fluort the victim’s eye, which stated as the clothes suffered by the offender. Moreover, since many people have clothes, the victim fluoring the clothes at the time of the occurrence of the case, and the victim fluoring the apartment house from the new subway to the new subway (the victim fluoring the apartment house at the time of the occurrence of the case from the new subway even though he/she was fluoring it from the new subway.