Not focus

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

It's important to remember that cell phone manufacturers embellish the abilities of their cameras.  There is a lot of marketing fluff in there.  The truth is that cellphones just aren't great tools for technically proficient stock photography.  The physical size of the sensor is much smaller than dslr's and there are many limitations such as not being able to control the aperture.

Although Adobe does accept cell phone photos, it's just more challenging to overcome the technical hurdles.

Photos are either edited by your camera or by you.  A raw file is the sensor data before any editing is applied and meant to go through the digital darkroom.  It's like taking film  to a 1 hour photo or doing the dark room work yourself.  You can get much better results with an actual darkroom, and the same is with a digital darkroom.  I've never viewed editing a photo as "cheating", but rather one of many steps to creating a compelling photograph.  Many natural looking photos are actually blended and edited, it's just not obvious.

I've also never been a fan of the word "original" because we all experience the world in a different way.  We will all think the sky is a different shade of blue, or how green grass really is.  That's the fun thing about photography, is that you get to show people how you see the world.

Regarding your question about editing,  it is needed. Cloning out unwanted objects such as logos, or unwanted distracting elements. When it come to post processing one can edit or enhance a photo. Enhancing is more about changing the exposure, increasing/decreasing shadows, recovering highlights etc.

Even in the darkroom days a lot of editing/enhancing was done in the darkroom. 

I don't understand if adobe stock is really mandatory the photos must be 100 percent perfect without any defects or errors

Yes, buyers of Adobe stock assets expect 100% error-free assets. So, the moderation team refuses all pictures with detected errors.

what is the solution so that the video photos that we record via cheap cellphones are always approved or accepted by Adobe Stock?

Check your assets beforehand at 100% and 200-300% and correct all errors you encounter. The vetting process treats all pictures equal, but it may be more difficult to get assets passing that have been taken with a small size sensor. These are physical limits, not bad will.

I record the original photo without editing it is always rejected by Adobe Stock, I make edited photos such as colorful backgrounds accepted by Adobe Stock (...)

I suppose you need to correct the exposure and sharpness and noise in your background. Without seeing the picture, we can't really check what is needed.

even though natural photos without any changes at all but I really like natural photos rather than edited ones because the edited ones are very beautiful but that's also not original right, so my question is Adobe Stock or consumers actually want to find original photos or photos that are edited. edited or engineered
By @azukiajorka.354725

If you take a picture and let the in-camera program processing your image, it gets edited. Only when you get a raw image, you get the data read from the chip. This data, however, is unusable, even on the most expensive and best camera of the world. That is, why we process images in a certain way, to give them a natural, equilibrated, technically correct look.

You're welcome.

Yes, Adobe Stock expects technically perfect images and makes no allowance for the fact that a mobile phone camera was used. Every image is subjected to the same scrutiny by the Moderators. 

as to your second question, virtually every image is not going to be technically perfect straight out of the camera and will require editing to offset technical flaws introduced by the digital camera. Such images are not more "natural" or "original". All digital cameras process images internally, so they're not necessarily close to what the eye perceives. Editing gives you the chance to modify the image to be closer to what you can perceive with your eyes - lightening the shadows, darkening the highlights, removing chromatic aberration, adjusting the white balance, removing sensor and lens spots, etc.

Thank you for your question and discussion.

" I don't understand if adobe stock is really mandatory the photos must be 100 percent perfect without any defects"

Yes, that is madatory. Your photos must be world class stock photos, and meet all the other rules of Adobe. It is possible to get such photos with a good phone camera, but it is much harder, and conditions and subject must be just right. There is a reason professionals buy fancy cameras, they don't just look cool !

" even though natural photos without any changes at all "

Most photos will need some editing; it is very rare to get the photo from the camera perfect. The edits are to make the photo look perfectly natural, with balanced colours. Sometimes to improve the composition to the best possible. Never add effects or change the look. Are you checking the histogram before submitting? Are you viewing at 100% in Photoshop before submitting?

My suggestion is that you share 1-3 photos that were rejected (no more)., which you feel are absolutely perfect.

For each photo, say the reason for rejection. For each photo upload EXACTLY as submitted, do not reduce or resave the file. This is vital so the experts here can repeat the checks which Adobe do every time.