The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the injury by robbery as to the injury by robbery on the ground of the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although it is sufficiently recognized that there was an intention to obtain illegal acquisition of E mobile phone devices owned by the defendant.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, even though the Defendant was unaware of E, it is recognized that the Defendant used the cell phone without the explicit consent of E and went out of the store of this case and caused injury to F in the course of dispute by accepting the F et al. as employees of the store.

B. Meanwhile, the record reveals the following facts.

1) The Defendant visited the instant store from an investigative agency to the lower court in order to consistently exchange the instant mobile phone device that was used by himself, and argued that the store employees refusing to visit the instant store and the instant mobile phone device was temporarily borrowed to the police to report by telephone. 2) The Defendant visited the instant store prior to approximately two weeks of the occurrence of the instant case, purchased the mobile phone device, and used it to exchange it with a small type of flag with a size of a smaller size than three to four days, and received counseling by visiting the said store prior to the occurrence of the instant case in order to exchange it again with a smaller size.

However, due to the lack of demand by the defendant, the police officer called out to the store staff.

3. On the date of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant re-to visit the instant store to re-faceted for 30 minutes to demand the exchange of mobile phone machines, and had the store employees consult with the store employees. However, the store employees refused the Defendant’s demand because it is impossible to exchange twice.

Therefore, the defendant is interested in the store.