The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the victim of misunderstanding of facts changed only to the side of the mobile phone opening through the mobile phone and received 600,000 won from the victim at the time of opening the mobile phone, and even though he did not deceiving the victim and take over the cost of the mobile phone by deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the public prosecutor examined the following facts in the instant charges: “The Defendant, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District Office CPC on January 3, 2012, sold the mobile phone to the victim D in order to have a big benefit from selling the mobile phone; thus, the Defendant divided the proceeds from selling the mobile phone. However, even if the Defendant opened the cell phone in the victim’s name and sold the cell phone, he did not think that he would have any profit to the victim.” The Defendant, “The Defendant, at the above CPC on January 3, 2012, was aware of the method of releasing money to the victim D. This would be known to the victim. If the Defendant, based on the belief, would have known him, sold money to another person. If the Defendant first purchased the cell phone in the four name and transferred it to B, then the Defendant did not have any intention to change the amount under the victim’s name or transfer it to another person under the victim’s name.” However, even if the Defendant did not have made a change in the Defendant’s name or transfer.