The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows.

1) In light of the fact that the Defendant remitted the payment of cosmetics to the borrowed name account of the victim as well as the victim himself/herself, and that the Defendant was considerably omitted out of the payment of cosmetics paid to the borrowed name account, and the victim was also selling cosmetics directly, the amount of the payment that the Defendant received from the injured party and the amount of the payment that the Defendant paid to the injured party is different from the victim’s statement, and the price of the cosmetics that the Defendant did not actually pay to the injured party is considerably smaller than the amount stated in the facts charged.

2) Considering the above circumstances, there was no intention to obtain fraud from the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 19, 2020, the Defendant filed an appeal on November 19, 2020, and entered the judgment in the petition of appeal on the ground of unfair appeal.

On December 21, 2020, the reasons for appeal submitted by the defendant are indicated only in the unfair sentencing and other columns in the summary of the reasons for appeal.

On January 8, 2021, a written opinion submitted by the national defense counsel also leads to the confession of a crime and the statement only on the grounds of appeal for sentencing (the statement by the defendant and the private defense counsel). The defendant and the defense counsel stated on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing as at the first trial date, which was proceeding on February 2, 2021, not timely filed, on February 2, 2021, on the grounds of appeal, the defendant and the defense counsel stated on the grounds of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing. However, this

It can not be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998, etc.). Unlike others, the reason for ex officio investigation can be found.