A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The F mobile phone (G) that has been seized.

A. In relation to fraud in the judgment of the second instance of mistake of facts, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the estimated price to the victim at the time, but did not pay the price to the emergency arrest of the police.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of deception.

Nevertheless, since the second instance court found the Defendant guilty of charges, the second instance judgment erred by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for four years and confiscation, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court tried by examining each appeal case against the judgment of the court below jointly. Each of the offenses of the judgment of the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's argument of mistake on the second judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The Defendant denies the crime to the effect that, with respect to the fraud crime in the second instance judgment, at the time, the Defendant had the intention to pay the inferred money to the Defendant and had no intention to commit the crime by deception.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the second instance court, the Defendant appears to have no intent or ability to pay the price even if he/she purchases the accusation with the victim C. Therefore, the intent of the Defendant’s defraudation is recognized.

Therefore, the second judgment which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is lawful, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(i).