A. The Defendant believed that he was able to refund a mobile phone at the time when he received the mobile phone from the victim, and the victim was well aware of the method of refund by the Defendant, thus not deceiving the victim.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim's name tag at the time when the victim was not an employee at the time, and the victim can easily receive refund because he was well aware of the employees of the Service Center due to transaction relations as KT employee (the defendant argued that there was no fact that the victim was an employee at the time). However, the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor by the prosecutor, and he stated that "the victim and G was the employee at the time," and the reason why the defendant was said to have no special occupation at the time, such as the need to remove the signboard, is difficult to receive the refund of the ordinarily defective mobile phone, and it seems that the defendant would not be able to receive the refund due to the actual requirement, and it seems that the defendant would not have received the request from the Service Center to receive the refund of the mobile phone to the extent that the mobile phone received from the victim was seriously defective, but the defendant would not have received the above artificial request to receive the refund of the defect within three months or six months.