The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) visited the office of the instant E company for the return of the books purchased by the Defendant under door-to-door sales method; and (b) the representative K at this place consented to the return of the books and was under the process of return by preparing a certificate of return confirmation to the Defendant; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the victim’s explicit demand for withdrawal.

In addition, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant’s Republic of Korea was unable to make a call even though he attempted several times to make a telephone call to the said company, and there was no way to demand return of the said book, not only the said office, but also the said office was a space in which the customer’s visits are allowed even at ordinary times, and the Defendant’s demand for return of books does not exceed 3 to 4 minutes, the Defendant’s act is dismissed as an act that does not violate the social norms.

On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court which was unfair in sentencing (an amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On August 26, 2014, the Defendant, at around 10:09, demanded that the victim D’s “E” office of the victim D with the nine floors of the Seoul Northernbuk-gu Seoul Northern District C building “E,” “the Defendant scambly sold the false books to the victim,” and demanded the Defendant’s return of books for young children purchased from the victim F, who was scamed by the Defendant, to the victim, and was demanded to demand the victim to return the books from the victim.

However, the Defendant did not comply with the request for withdrawal of the victim without justifiable reasons, because the police officer dispatched after receiving a report from the victim at around 10:21 on the same day did not leave the place until the police officer arrives.

B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the evidence of its judgment.