The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have attempted to acquire a discount set and operate it normally, but a partner failed to pay the price for the goods to the victim on the ground that he did not pay the price for the goods on a timely basis. Thus, there was no intention that the Defendant acquired the price for the goods.

Nevertheless, the court below found all the facts charged guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed through the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) the Defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendant intended to acquire and operate a discount club by attracting investment or loan funds to another person; (c) the Defendant promised to provide a son with a multi-household house owned by her mother but failed to do so; (d) the Defendant sold goods supplied to another person and received a normal payment from her mother, but used them for personal use without paying goods to the victim; (iv) the Defendant’s actual existence of the partner; and (v) the amount of debt owed by the Defendant and the Defendant operated at a discount club, as indicated in the facts charged, can be fully recognized by the lower court, by deceiving the victim as if he had promised to pay the goods at the time, and by taking account of the fact that he was aware that the Defendant could not pay the goods to the victim at least as indicated in the facts charged.