A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, as to the fraud against the victim J (the lower judgment: 2012Kadan10359): the Defendant received steel from the victim's idea of selling steel, and actually sold it to the injured party, but the Defendant actually paid the steel price in installments. At the time, the Defendant was consumed due to his economic difficulties, and there was no intention of deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts were duly adopted and investigated: (i) the Defendant received part of the steel price from the secondhand, but did not immediately inform the victim; and (ii) the Defendant did not fully mention the fact that the Defendant received the steel price from the victim (Article 60179 of the Evidence No. 60179, Mar. 37, 2012, and No. 69, 70 of the Evidence No. 2012), and (ii) the Defendant sold the steel to the secondhand body that he became aware of with the introduction of the child’s friendship, and (iii) the Defendant did not normally appear to have been aware of the process of sale, such as: (i) the Defendant received the steel price in cash without the receipt; and (ii) the Defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, was financially unstable to the extent that it was “refiscing so-called,” and (iii) the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment 20151 pinteM 201.