Around January 2012, the Defendant paid rent without delay and promised to take over the ownership of the automobile within 12 months to take over the vehicle. Around August 2012, the Defendant offered the automobile as a security and borrowed money from a third party, and the Defendant did not notify the complainant and even did not have any opinion from the complainant, and the Defendant had the ability to pay the construction price claim. In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the intention to use the rent for the payment of the rent agreed with the complainant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, acquitted the Defendant.

Judgment

A. On January 25, 2012, the Defendant stated that, at the victim F office, the victim F office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, the Defendant paid E the lease fee of KRW 2,293,00 per month in lieu of the face-to-face car per week, and the ownership of the automobile shall also be transferred within 12 months.

However, in fact, even if the Defendant did not have any property at the time and there was no certain income, and the victim company entered into a contract with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on July 23, 201 on the condition that the lease fee of KRW 2,293,00 per month would be paid for 48 months each month, the Defendant could not normally pay the lease fee, and further, it could not normally acquire the ownership of the said motor vehicle.

The Defendant, as such, had the victim company, which was equivalent to KRW 65,50,000,000 at the market price of the same day from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., by deceiving E and deceiving it, has concluded a lease contract with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.