According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant promised to sell the cargo to the original victim at the time of the transportation of the cargo, and received the money in the name of the transportation of the cargo, which is the consideration, in excess of the original vehicle price, including the vehicle price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not make any effort to arrange a cargo transport day to the victim, and actually did not have the ability to arrange a cargo transport day to the victim, so it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intention to defraud the victim at the time.

2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and, in particular, the victim's investigation agency and the statement at the court of the court below alone are hard to recognize that the defendant was paid KRW 145 million in total by separating the victim's vehicle price from KRW 15 million at the time of entering into a transportation service contract with the victim at the beginning. ② Rather, the victim, after entering into a transportation service contract with the defendant, listened to the opinion that the vehicle price from the whole owner of the cargo purchased by the victim is KRW 15 million, and the remaining KRW 40 million was considered to be the money in terms of commission or transportation brokerage, and it appears that the defendant was entrusted to the victim. Since the defendant did not entrust the victim with the transportation service contract at the beginning, the defendant did not meet the request of the victim with the transportation service contract (the date on which the cargo was set to the F in this city, which was set to be entrusted with the sale of the cargo at the request of the victim, the defendant prepared the transportation service contract with the MMMM on June 26, 2017.