The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case although the defendant did not have a criminal intent to defraud the facts, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 27, 2017, the lower court comprehensively admitted and examined the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of factual misunderstanding, namely, ① at the time when the Defendant, on January 27, 2017, puts a letter into the Internet NAV car page, that read, “The Defendant sold a half-yearly 808 opening of ELF 808”, the Defendant did not own a half-yearly 808 opening of ELF 808; ② at the time, the Defendant’s mother and the Dong business operated a mutual car page “G”.

In light of the fact that E owns the aforementioned reflect period, but E was used as used goods for not less than one year, ③ the defect in the provisions of several times since the victim transferred the reflect period to the defendant, which was not delivered once again, the defendant sent the reflect period to the victim as if he sent the reflect period, ④ the victim was aware that the defendant did not have the reflect period or was used as used goods for not less than one year, and ④ the victim would have not purchased the reflect period or would have not purchased it under the same condition. In light of the fact that the defendant could fully recognize the fact that 1.5 million won by deceiving the victim and received it and the criminal intent of defraudation of the defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant has returned all the amount of damage to the victim and the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, the crime of this case is not good, and the defendant commits the same method.