A. misunderstanding of facts: (a) although there was a fact that the Defendant sold a heavy bitphone to the victim B and received KRW 100,000,000 from the victim, there was no intention to obtain fraud because the mobile phone sold to the above victim was lost and was unaware of that it was owned by another person; (b) there was no intention to obtain fraud; and (c) there was no fact that he lost the passbook of a national bank in his name and did not transfer it to another; and (d) there was no fact that he lost the passbook of a national bank in his name, and there was no fact that he transferred it to another, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 1, 2011, the Defendant appears to have contacted the victim B using M, which is the registration number of the instant mobile phone in order to sell the instant mobile phone, and the Defendant stated in the police that “On April 1, 201, at around 00:30, the mother of the instant mobile phone owner verified the details of the telephone registration number of the instant mobile phone, and there was a telephone with the said victim.”

Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the instant mobile phone is in a usable state, not public machinery, and the Defendant asserted that the instant mobile phone was taken out without any consideration from the 50th male male who is an employee working on behalf of the Defendant, but he did not make any statement about the above person.