The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty in spite of the fact that the defendant had not sold cans to customers at the time of the mistake of the fact is erroneous.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant sold cans to customers as stated in the facts charged of this case.

Although the lower court did not mention the lower court’s evidence list, it decided that “the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant” was the evidence of guilt.

Even if it can be seen as a simple clerical error, so long as the defendant denied the facts charged in this case in the court of original trial, it is not recognized as evidence of the above police interrogation protocol which includes the confession of the defendant.

If the court below did not make an entry in the evidence list in order to clarify that the police interrogation protocol against the defendant is not admissible as evidence, the court below's above evidence statement of the court below may be viewed as a simple clerical error.

As seen earlier, insofar as the aforementioned evidence alone, other than the protocol of the interrogation of the police, can sufficiently be found guilty of the defendant, the above judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

B. There is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that can be reflected in sentencing after the decision of the lower court on the unfair argument of sentencing is rendered.

The defendant still denies the crime of this case and does not seem to be able to properly reflect his mistake, and considering various sentencing conditions in this case, including the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment.