The defendant would sell the mobile phone to the victim.

There is no fact that the victim did not speak, and the victim is working for the mobile phone business.

In addition, only the request was made by the request.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

The judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal is consistent with the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The victim made a consistent statement at the investigative agency and court of the court below to the effect that “The defendant was delivered the statement that the defendant would sell a heavy cell phone, received three portable phone calls, and the defendant paid the unpaid Seoul Guarantee Insurance Premium, etc., but the defendant was dead without receiving the victim’s portable phone after opening the cell phone,” and ② The defendant and the victim prepared the “performance contract” on the day of the instant case on the date of the instant case, and the content of the “the defendant made the payment contract” to the effect that “the defendant paid the victim a debt of KRW 1,422,762 on the aggregate of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Premium, Ga Card Card, and S K Telecom amount paid by the victim to the victim, and the defendant paid the insurance premium to the victim by paying the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Premium, etc., and that the victim’s statement and the defendant received the insurance premium to the effect that the defendant was paid to the victim.