A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding investigation, the fact that the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim L by deceiving the victim L and by inducing the payment of electric utility fees, etc. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 based on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the victim first proposed the operation of the cell phone sales store on April 2015; and (ii) the defendant has consistently made from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court of the court of the court; and (iii) the defendant stated that "it is true that the victim would not have the ability to pay a security deposit to the victim," but it is not said that he would receive money with respect to the vehicle, but it would be economically difficult for the victim to receive money." (iii) The victim made a statement consistent with the facts charged in relation to other opportunities examined by this court and the investigative agency, but in relation to the police replacement investigation conducted on February 17, 2016, the victim made a statement that "the defendant would not have the ability to pay a security deposit to him/her," and the victim made a false statement to the defendant."