The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendants not guilty of all the facts charged, and the prosecutor appealed only against quasi-special robbery without appeal against the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and the scope of this court’s trial is limited to quasi-special robbery among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) is recognized in light of the fact that Defendant A did not make any effort to return the cell phone of the victimJ taken by Defendant A to the victim, but throw away it into the apartment chemicalization as if it were self-owned property.

또한 피고인 A은 피해자의 휴대전화를 낚아챈 직후 곧바로 피해자의 재물 탈환을 차단하기 위해 피해자의 목 부위를 잡는 등 유형력을 행사하였다고 볼 여지도 충분하다.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of quasi-special robbery, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The prosecutor of the amendment of indictment (in addition to the facts charged in the preliminary charge) maintains the facts charged as to the special robbery committed in the court as the primary charges, and maintains "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the name of the preliminary crime, "Article 5-9 (2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 283 (1), 30, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of law, and

An application for amendment to Bill of Indictment was filed to add the same contents as stated in the paragraph, and this court permitted it, so the subject of the adjudication was changed.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and then the prosecutor's above assertion and the ancillary facts added by this court.