A. Fact-finding (2017 Highest 1508) The Defendant did not purchase and administer a penphone from H, and there is no fact that the Defendant filed a false accusation against a false fact, thereby barring H.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (i) H, upon being examined by the Defendant and the prosecution, made a statement to the effect of denying this part of the facts charged; (ii) other investigative agencies and the court of the lower court consistently sold and administered phiphonephones to the Defendant.

A statement is made; ② He reverses his statement after he was examined by the Defendant and the prosecutor’s office; ② The statement directly prepared about the process of the reversal of H’s statement and submitted to the prosecutor’s office after he was examined by the Defendant and the prosecutor’s office; ③ The statement that H sold and administered the phone to the Defendant is supported by objective data, such as the telephone conversations between the Defendant and H, account transaction details; ④ On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any explanation that the above telephone content or account transaction details are ordinarily acceptable; ⑤ The statement is not consistent; ⑤ The case where the Defendant was punished by the partially administered the phone, and the case where the Defendant was punished by the partially administered the phone, it appears that the Defendant purchased the phone by means of having other persons injection the phone, instead of a large number of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant purchased the phone and made a false statement to H.