In addition, even if the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the term of validity of inspection of the said astronomical air expired, and that the registration of construction machinery for the said astronomical air may be cancelled ex officio, the above circumstances were not an important matter that the Defendant was aware of in the sale of the said astronomical air.

Therefore, since the defendant did not have the intention of deception, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, given that it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving the defrauded of KRW 25 million, which is the purchase price of the instant astronomical air.

On July 20, 2004, the Defendant purchased the instant astronomical air without filing for ownership transfer registration from C on or around November 2008, and entered into a sales contract with the victim on or around March 16, 2008. By March 16, 2009, the Defendant received both the purchase price of KRW 25 million from the victim and delivered the said astronomical air to the victim on or around May 2009.

B. Circumstances such as the fact that the transfer registration of ownership on the astronomical air, which is the subject matter of sale, is impossible, and that the registration of construction machinery is ex officio due to dolus negligence, etc., are important factors in determining the purchaser’s intention, is clear

The Defendant received the construction machinery register by purchasing the instant astronomical air from C, and the term of validity of inspection was indicated as “198-4-28 to 1999-04-27.”

The defendant uses a tent.