A. Error of facts (the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of original instance) did not mislead the victims, and all the victims received money but did not receive money from the victims, and there was no money from the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued the same purport as the above argument of mistake, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail with a detailed statement on the back of the summary of each evidence of the judgment. The following circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, namely, ① in light of the currency content of the Defendant and the victims, the Defendant also received money from the victims as a job solicitation, and talked on the premise that he was used as a job solicitation, ② the victims are not known to have no special background, ② the Defendant appears to have given money to the Defendant who believed that he had been working in the new harbor under P and the nearest relationship with the Defendant was capable of having employed himself, and ③ even though some victims’ statements were partially reversed, it was required to return money to the other victims upon the commencement of an investigation by U.S., and thus, the Defendant did not have to take part in the investigation agency on the date of the victim’s statement.