A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, sells the instant vehicle to the victim through F, stating that E, “only when he takes charge of F, he/she may sell the said vehicle by carrying out the instant delivery business,” and there was no intention to commit deception or fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the defendant's argument on the grounds of detailed reasons in determining the defendant's argument.

In a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment

B. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, determined the above punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the injury has not been recovered; (b) the victim gains a certain portion of profits while continuing the delivery business temporarily; and (c) the market price of the freezing truck of this case exceeds KRW 40 million.

In full view of all the elements of sentencing including the sentencing data of the lower court, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, method of the instant crime, degree of damage, and circumstances before and after the crime, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is within the scope of discretion, and there are no special circumstances to change it in the time of the trial. Therefore, the said allegation of unfair

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.