A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the crime of Bosing, there was no intention of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its ruling.

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, that the Defendant searched the contents relating to the singinging using smartphones at the time of the instant case at the time of contact with the persons without personal knowledge, etc., the Defendant may recognize the facts leading to the instant crime by recognizing the possibility of committing the singing, allowing the Defendant to commit the singing.

Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the facts as the Defendant pointed out.

B. In full view of the arguments in the instant case and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to change the sentence imposed by the lower court.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.