A. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed fraud against the Defendant, on the ground that, after purchasing Otoba from another person at a low price, sold Otoba and left profits from market price by selling Otoba to the victim, but the victim demanded the return of the remitted money, the Defendant returned the money without delivering Otoba to the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 29, 2017, the lower court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence that the Defendant: (a) puts up on “E” the Internet DC CCC, “BW S100% Oraltop,” and “on the day of transfer to the Defendant, to the Defendant as cargo”; (b) the victim reported the above sales text and sent it to the Defendant for the purchase of the Oraltop, and 9.8 million won to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant did not own the Oraltop at the time of raising the above text; and (d) there was no data or method to purchase the Oraltop, which appears to be impossible for the Defendant to send it to the victim, on the same day (the Defendant did not submit materials supporting the Defendant’s argument up to the trial). In full view of the fact that the Defendant did not actually have made it impossible for the Defendant to send it to the victim the instant cargo on the day of deposit.