2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, was allowed by E to use a new bank credit card (hereinafter “the instant credit card”) from E to settle the telecom, and only used it. There was no theft of the instant credit card from E as stated in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, such as the statement in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, and the Defendant did not acquire and use the stolen credit card by deceiving the her operator as described in subparagraph 2-A of Article 2, thereby avoiding the payment of the telecom.

However, since the court below found all of the facts charged guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, as described in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, stolen the instant credit card from the victim E, as described in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, and obtained pecuniary benefits to avoid the payment of the telecom by deceiving the operator of the de facto telecom, such as Paragraph (2) A of the 2-A, and sufficiently recognized the use of the stolen credit card.

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

1) In the initial police, the Defendant was aware of the card that was left away from the floor and that he was aware of the card.

“After having made a statement to the effect that they were “(42 pages of investigation records),” and later “after having almost little spirit of E when entering the telecom, they paid the telecom by using a card that they got back of the telecom.”

“Agressing a crime by making a statement to the effect that it was “(57 pages of the investigation record),” and both the prosecution and the court of original instance led to the confession of the facts charged.