A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not sell a penphone to E as stated in the facts charged, and the money remitted by E to the Defendant is paid to the Defendant’s husband H with the money lent by E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the E’s statement without credibility (excluding the part on the sale of philophones on November 8, 2014) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Even if the details of the transaction in which the Defendant received the payment of the Philphones from E are not confirmed, considering the statement of E and the details of entry into and withdrawal from the account of I who withdrawn the funds to be used as the purchase price of the Philphones, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant sold the Philphones to E as stated in the facts charged on November 8, 2014, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant sold phiphones to E, such as the Defendant’s crime list, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) It was found that E was supplied with philophones from the Defendant and sold philophones to each receiver who was supplied with philophones from H before H, the husband of the Defendant, was detained, and then remitted the proceeds to the Defendant.

The statement in the court below is very specific and consistent, and it is supported by the monetary statements between the defendant and E and the remittance details.