The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant received money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, it was merely a promotion of financial convenience by pretending the secondary and high-ranking transactions, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the relevant legal principles and the principle of court-oriented trials, considering the results of the examination of evidence in the first instance court and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the argument for mistake of facts is examined, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court's decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's decision is remarkably unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). 2) The defendant asserted that the judgment in this case is the same as the grounds for appeal. The lower court also asserted that the credibility of the statement is recognized by the materials submitted, etc. (the victim's statement is specific and consistent, and its credibility is recognized by the materials, etc.; the defendant initially stated that the victim requested the details of credit card transaction for the purpose of taking money in order to impose a fine; and then, it does not coincide with other materials, etc., and then tried the defendant's his own statement by deceiving the defendant.