An application for remedy order shall be dismissed by an applicant for remedy order.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of part of the charges of fraud against the victim C and E, but acquitted part of the charges.

However, it does not seem that the date and time of each crime is close and that there is no reason to judge differently from the will of the accused.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted some of the charges of fraud.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. (1) As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake on the facts of the lower judgment, the prosecutor borrowed money from the Defendant to the victim C in return for the receipt of the original body or clothes. However, the fact that the Defendant merely repaid the existing debt with the money, but did not have the intent or ability to pay the money to the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes fraud.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that T, a part of the remitter to whom the victim sent money, is not the original business operator, nor the defendant's mere individual creditor.

The Defendant has remitted money received from the injured party as such to the customer, or submitted the data, etc. paid for customs clearance and warehouse expenses.

Even according to the statement of the victim, it is unclear whether the defendant would be able to purchase the original part of the defendant, be paid to the original part of the defendant, be paid to the profits from the original part of the defendant, or be paid to the original part of the defendant.

The Defendant, from an investigative agency, has part of the “the so-called “the right to return” for the repayment of his/her personal debt from the Defendant to the victim.

and this part has been recognized.