All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the specific and reasonable statement of the victim misunderstanding the facts, the defendant's criminal records before and after the instant crime, etc., the fact that the defendant took the cell phone of the victim is recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged by misunderstanding facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 7, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 20:10 on October 7, 2017, the Defendant discovered the victim D (n, 28 years of age) who was seated at the bus stops located in Ansan-si, Seoul and had a telephone call; and (b) had an opportunity to take property by force; (c) on the same day, the Defendant continued to have a telephone call around 20:25 on the same day; (d) led the victim’s head moving into a duro, leading the victim’s head going beyond the floor to a slope, and led the victim’s head at two times at times, and jumbly 7 mobile phones at the market price of 800,000 won, which was located on the floor, and took place at 200,000 won, with the victim’s outstanding treatment and the victim’s treatment necessary.

2) Determination A) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a related criminal trial, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). In short, this case should be examined in light of such legal principles.

(b).