A. In fact, the Defendant did not know that the bill of this case is a bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbing note, and the Defendant or the victim trusted “collection of the bill of this case by the issuer” rather than “payment by the issuer” with respect to the bill of this case, and the victim refused to discount by the delivery of the bill of this case and confirmed the value of the right to sell the container, and then delivered discount money to the Defendant upon receiving the right to sell the container as security. As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim or by deceiving the victim,

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the statements made by G, M, and victims without credibility, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

According to the statements of G, M, etc. and part of the Defendant’s investigation agency’s statement, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the “billed bill” was “band-band-band-band-band-band-band-band-band-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand-cand

It is difficult to conjecte immediately, and there is no objective data to accept the exceptional circumstances under the social norms that the injured party, even though he is aware that the bill is a bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb area, he/she had the victim discounted the bill, and therefore, he/she acquired the amount equivalent to the discount amount of the bill by deceiving the injured party as if the bill of this case could be settled normally, and by omitting mistake

that such approval may be sufficiently recognized

The decision was determined.

Examining the above judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.