A. Although the Defendant did not arrange the trade of philophones between C and D, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Good offices” in determining the assertion of mistake of facts refers to “a brokerage or convenience between a certain person and the other party regarding a certain matter.” In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant offered or assisted convenience for C to purchase a phiphone from D, so that C and D could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant provided or assisted to purchase a phiphone, thereby arranging the phiphone sales.

① From January 2009 to the original trial, C made a consistent statement as to the fact that the Defendant and D want to purchase phiphones, and later remitted the phiphones price to the account designated by the Defendant, and received the phiphones from D.

② At an investigative agency, D heard the Defendant’s talking that C would seek a written phone, and stated that the Defendant would seek a written phone through E, and that the Defendant was informed of the account number to deposit the written phone.

③ As such, the Defendant appears to have engaged in the payment of the price, which is the main part of the philophone transaction, thereby helping C and D deal with philophones, and C, upon obtaining the philophones from D, requested the Defendant to deliver the amount of the philophones to the Defendant once. This seems to be a philograms mark following D’s occurrence of philophones transaction.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake.