The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant: (a) placed a credit card between the victim E in the convenience store calculation team (hereinafter “instant credit card”) in a bar to report it to the police station; and (b) used the card in the name of the Plaintiff, who was ordinarily used, or the name of the agricultural cooperative, with the knowledge that it was used.

It cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a “suspect” for each of the crimes in this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the color and pattern, etc. of the instant credit card and the Defendant’s cream card can be easily distinguishable from each other; ② the Defendant entered Gstst and Ists to commit tobacco fraud; ② there was no circumstance for the Defendant to make payment to the extent that each of the said credit cards could not be distinguished; ③ the Defendant did not have any other card or cash request to the Defendant, even though he did not have any other card or cash request, ③ the Defendant was able to not make payment with the instant credit card; ④ the Defendant was left without presenting the cream card under his name, and ④ the Defendant did not report the acquisition of the instant credit card to the police station, etc. from the date on which he acquired the instant credit card to January 18, 2013; and the Defendant was not able to obtain the instant credit card in the possession of the instant card, and the Defendant was not able to obtain it from the victim’s view that he did not know that the instant credit card was in possession (the Defendant’s possession of this case).

The court below convicted each of the facts charged of this case.