A. As to the fraud of this case by mistake of facts, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too uneasy and unfair.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) provided one another with an account under the name of U.S. corporation; (b) provided the Defendant with an account opened in the name of U.S. corporation; and (c) on December 30, 2018, the Defendant: (a) provided the Defendant with an account opened in the name of U.S. corporation; (b) provided the Defendant with an account opened in the name of U.S. corporation; and (c) provided the Defendant with an account opened in the name of K.S. bank account in the name of K.S.; and (d) sought a suspension of transaction at the location of K.S. bank network located in U.S. (U.S.); and (c) provided the Defendant with an explanation that “the account was used as fraud, but the transaction was suspended upon receipt of a report,” and (d) came to know that the account in the name of U.S. corporation that the Defendant provided to U.S. was used in the name of U.S. bank account opened the instant apartment account under the name of 20.

On the other hand, the employee of the Singishing assistance assumes the victim Q by telephone, message, etc. at a non-displace on January 30, 2019 and assumes the investigation officer and inspection of the victim Q, and “the new account was connected with the crime,”

The principle is subject to the detention investigation, but it is possible to allow the police to investigate the unconvicted.