The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and eight months, and Defendant C with prison labor for one year and eight months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C’s assertion of mistake is that the Defendants already acquired a device that the operator of a mobile phone store, who is an accomplice, obtained from a telecommunications company or agency, and thus, there is a relation between the Defendants’ deception and the delivery of the device by the victim’s telecommunications company or agency.

Since it cannot be said that the part concerning the crime of defraudation of the horses among the facts charged in the instant case cannot be established, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s punishment of the Defendants (Defendant A and B: three years of imprisonment, two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence for Defendant D: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence for Defendant D, and two years of suspended sentence for 200 hours) are excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of the facts by Defendant B and C, namely, ① the telecommunications company's agent, the agent is supplied a mobile phone sales store on credit to the mobile phone sales store, and the agent or the mobile phone sales store is provided with the insurance company's surety insurance policy to secure the price. The agent or the mobile phone sales store supplied the mobile phone to the customer after being supplied with the mobile phone sales store within the coverage of the guaranteed amount, or in the case of installment sales, the sales of the mobile phone sales contract between the telecommunications company and the agent, and the agent and the mobile phone sales store are traded in the form of transfer of the claim to the telecommunications company. In light of the fact that the sales of the mobile phone sales contract between the telecommunications company and the agent and the mobile phone sales store, it appears that the sales of the mobile phone sales contract between the agent and the mobile phone sales store have the nature of the sales by reservation of ownership.