A. In light of the legal principles, the registration of the text containing personal information of the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) on the Internet bulletin board of the “market” is inconsistent with the registration of the victim C (hereinafter “victim”). However, this is an inevitable procedure to confirm whether the victim would take the collection procedure at the address held by the Defendant in the circumstance that the victim did not know the address for collecting the goods despite the request for return of the goods, and the victim’s visit and did not know the address for collecting the goods. Therefore, it constitutes

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim ordered the Center Empic, which was sold by the Defendant through Gmarket on March 24, 2015, but was delivered on March 27, 2015, and accordingly, demanded return of the goods to the Defendant; (ii) the victim and the Defendant, who had not been able to appraise each other due to disputes over delay in delivery, etc.; (iii) on April 1, 2015, the victim returned the said goods to the Defendant using convenience store delivery (non-payment method: non-payment method); (iv) the victim asked the Defendant to use the phone Empic system in telephone and text on April 4, 2015, and then asked the Defendant to return the goods to the convenience store (hereinafter “the convenience store return”).