A. In fact, the victim, knowing that the instant earphone product was a fake product, requested the supply of the product, and the Defendant supplied the fake product.

Therefore, the defendant does not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of fact, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined evidence, i.e., ① if the victim knew of the circumstance that the instant earphone product is a fake as the Defendant’s assertion, it appears that the manufacturer would not purchase the earphone product at the price of KRW 20,000 per piece. ② Furthermore, the Defendant supplied the same type of earphone product to the victim from December 201, 201 to April 201, from the date of the transfer of the instant case, to the point of view that the Defendant and the victim supplied the said product at KRW 85,000 per piece (Evidence No. 480 of the evidence record) to the victim’s accomplice, contrary to the aforementioned product’s assertion, it appears that the Defendant’s assertion that the earphone product was supplied at the price of the instant product at the price lower than the victim’s price.