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 (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The 2017 Highest 3093, which is a misunderstanding of the fact: The Defendant did not acquire the sales proceeds from the victim because he/she sold and transferred the goods normally to the victim.

After receiving a request for the refund from the injured party, only did not pay the refund amount (which is argued by the misunderstanding of the legal principles on the criminal intent of defraudation, but is not the assertion of misunderstanding the facts). The violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of 2017 J. 3438: The defendant did not think that he was used for the crime only when he believed that he was in trust of the explanation of the solicitation of the head of the Tong M and in favor of the head of the Tong, etc.

Since the Defendant did not receive the price due to the lease of the head of the Tong, the Defendant is only the victim of the crime.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment, the applicable law, and the name of the crime to be selectively added with regard to the fraud of "2017 Highest 3093" at the trial of the court, and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the trial.

Since the above part of fraud is a concurrent crime with other crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of 2017 High Order 3438 is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined (as to the case of 2017 High Order 3093, so long as it is found that the Defendant was guilty of any selective additional embezzlement through a change of opinion as follows, it shall not be separately determined as to the facts charged of fraud). 3. The lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts on March 2, 201, in the summary of the evidence [2017 High Order 3438 (Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act)].