The part concerning the crime No. 2 or 5 of the crime list No. 1-1 of the judgment is reversed.

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts ① the fraud (victim H) of the Decision 2 in the original judgment, the Defendant actually purchased the vehicle by receiving money from H for the purchase of a heavy halog new mold vehicle.

Therefore, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings H or acquired the purchase price of the above vehicle.

② As to the fraud No. 4 of [Attachment 1-1] of the judgment in the original instance, the Defendant received the purchase price from K to QM5 vehicle, and immediately delivered the said vehicle to K, but only did not deliver the documents related to the transfer of ownership.

Therefore, there is no fact that the defendant deceiving K or acquired the purchase price of the above vehicle.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against the crimes Nos. 1-1 2 through 5 of the attached Table 1-1 of the Sentencing Decision 1 is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below as to the non-guilty portion, the defendant received money from the victims by deceiving them to purchase a vehicle with a very good economic condition, and there was a fact that some victims purchased and delivered a vehicle, but did not observe the delivery date, and purchased the vehicle with a money less than the money received from the victims and used the remaining money for other purposes.

Therefore, all of these parts are subject to fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (i.e., crimes Nos. 1-1 of [Attachment 1-1] and 2 of [Attachment 1-1] as indicated in the judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, suspension of execution for one year, and (ii) crimes Nos. 1-1 of [Attachment 1-1] 2 through 5 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined in the lower court as to the fraud (victim H) of 2 in the lower judgment’s holding, the Defendant is a halog new framework against the victim H.