A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim did not neglect the victim's mistake, and only requested a seizure and collection order according to his own judgment, knowing that the Defendant was not self-sufficient.

In addition, since the attachment and assignment order received by one victim (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) is null and void because there is no entire claim, C did not obtain any property benefits, and even if such assignment order is valid.

Even if C loses his claim against the Defendant in lieu of the extinguishment of the obligation against the victim, C did not acquire any pecuniary benefit.

In addition, the victim did not have any damage as the defendant's act.

Therefore, although fraud cannot be established against the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the grounds delineated below, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged for the following reasons.

A) Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are: ① The victim’s choice among the collection order and the assignment order is stipulated in the letter to which the defendant sent to the victim; however, the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, intends to pay money to the defendant who is unaware of the difference between

On the other hand, the Defendant stated that he received an order in full as the Defendant did. ② At the time of the police investigation, the Defendant stated that “A victim may file a lawsuit on the installment payment to the Defendant and repay the obligation that he has received final and conclusive judgment,” and that “C does not have a claim against the Defendant, and thus, an assignment order is issued.