A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, performed his duty of care at the time of purchasing bicycles from E.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant only requested the identification card during the process of selling three bicycles for a short period of up to one month; (ii) the defendant's resident registration number, name, and handphone number was stated in the defendant's account book; (iii) even if the defendant confirmed only E's identification card, it was merely a direct entry of E, not a confirmation of E's identification card; (iv) even if the defendant confirmed only the E's identification card, the defendant's address (Seoul Songpa-gu J, 313) was sufficiently suspected of continuously selling the same kind of goods at a short period, or could have been aware that it was a stolen article; (iv) the defendant did not enter the date and purchase price in the account book; and (v) the defendant was a person responsible for the bicycle's duty of care as a person responsible for the bicycle's work.

Therefore, there is no error of misconception of facts that the court below found the defendant guilty, and thus, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there are no special circumstances to ex post facto change the sentencing. Therefore, the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.