Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. At the time of sale of the instant vehicle, the Defendant: (a) issued all documents verifying that the instant vehicle was the leased vehicle to the victim; and (b) that the leased fee was normally paid to the victim.

In other words, there is no deceiving the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

When the prosecutor is in the first instance, the facts charged against the defendant is that "Defendant A was an employee of the lending company, and that fact was that the victim C (37 years and South) had no intention or ability to sell the vehicle normally.

Nevertheless, around September 23, 2014, when selling Category D (N) vehicles in the name of modern Capital Capitals in the name of the person who is registered as a vehicle in the name of the E, but E is paying the vehicle faithfully, E is also paying the vehicle installments in good faith, and E has a deposit and a loan increase. Therefore, there is no problem in the use of the vehicle at all.

13 million won can be used from 5-6 months to 5-6 months per week, and if E returns 13 million won thereafter, it will be possible to return the vehicle.

E acquired KRW 13,00,000 by receiving KRW 5,00,000 from the injured party who believed to be true, such as receiving KRW 5,00,000,00 from the actual account, and delivery of KRW 8,00,00,00 to the other F account, without knowing KRW 13,00,000.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more because it applied for permission to change the contents to "," and this court permitted it, and the subject of the judgment was legally changed.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake still exists.