The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. After the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on September 27, 2013 for a crime related to the large-scale transaction, the Defendant did not make all the large-scale transactions.

Therefore, the Defendant did not commit the same crime as stated in No. 244 through 248, No. 251, and No. 253 through 259 among the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which was after the date of receiving the above judgment.

Defendant

In addition to the assertion of mistake of facts in this part, the defense counsel argued that part of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below did not commit a crime, but the prosecutor applied for the withdrawal of the charge and the modification of the charge was changed, and thus, the part which was not withdrawn is determined only.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (seven months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the public prosecutor examined the facts charged against the defendant at the time of the trial, and applied for changes in the indictment with the following facts charged. Since this court permitted this, the subject of the trial has changed, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the argument of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if the above ground of misunderstanding of facts exists.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion of mistake can be sufficiently recognized, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake, and in particular, E, who had transacted with the Defendant, testified that the Defendant entrusted the sale of a large-scale vehicle to the Defendant by February 2, 2014.