However, in fact, E entered in the construction machinery registration certificate of the above digging machines was not the actual owner of the digging machines, and the actual owner should immediately return the digging machines when he demanded the return of the digging machines. Therefore, even if the money was received from the victim as a security deposit, the Defendant did not have the right to lease the digging machines normally or to transfer ownership.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received cash of 14,500,000 won from the victim through F on the same day.

Judgment

1. The allegation of acquittal and the facts charged in this case are identical to the facts charged in this Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 1471, and the above judgment has already become final and conclusive, and thus the defendant shall be acquitted, but it shall not be accepted for the following reasons.

The criminal facts of the above 2018 Highest 1471 case were introduced to the effect that, upon receiving a request from G by the Defendant to the effect that “the place where the scambling machine is sold,” the Defendant acquired the scambling machine, and again, to C, the scambling machine at a price lower than the market price of the scambling machine. Where the borrower is created, the borrower would pay the money and recover the difference, and the borrower may find the scambling machine in life unless there is any money.” After introducing the scambling machine to G, C introduced the scambling machine to purchase the scambling machine of this case from G.