The Defendant, through misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, made efforts to implement the contract after entering into the contract with the victim through G, but only he suffered damage to the victim because the company did not cause a chilling ship.

The defendant did not have deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deceiving the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles after the defendant specifically explained the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment, on the same grounds as the grounds for appeal in this case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances properly explained by the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

The judgment of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretion is made within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the matters on the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, there is no exception.