A. The Defendant does not have sold a mert cancer to C.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since the facts charged by the Defendant sold Mepta to C.

C made a concrete and consistent statement from the investigation stage to the original court in regard to the process, date, time, place, etc. of the purchase from the Defendant, and subsequent circumstances.

C, at the time of the police investigation, the first statement was made that there was no upper line at the time of the police investigation, but later was made to the effect that the Defendant was subject to Mepta by the court of pro-Japanese who died, and that the Defendant purchased the Mepta from the Defendant during the 6th interrogation of the police. The first denied criminal facts C, in collusion with L, was investigated into the criminal facts, such as making the victim JsJ ambacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacaca

Recognizing the above facts of the crime, we reverse the statement of the seller of Mepta, and thus, we cannot deny the credibility of the statement solely on the ground that C reversed the statement.

C was unable to return KRW 57 million to K, etc. introduced by the Defendant, but there was no circumstance to acknowledge that there was a dispute between C and the Defendant. Rather, C appears to have been in need of the Defendant’s cooperation to return the said money.