(In fact, even though the victim C was aware that the accident occurred and there is a possibility of leakage in the process of the performance test from E, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of receiving money after deceiving C about the accident experience of the vehicle in this case, in light of the fact that the defendant did not notify C of the fact that the vehicle in this case had a history of accident and a problem of performance, although he was aware that the vehicle in this case had a history of accident and a problem of performance, he did not notify C of the fact that the defendant acquired money after deceiving C about the accident experience of the vehicle in this case.

Judgment

The lower court: (a) in accordance with the Automobile Management Act, the Defendant inspected the performance status of the instant vehicle in G; (b) as a result of the inspection, explained that the result of the inspection was “o-accident (except simple repair)” to Nai J. C, and explained that the instant vehicle was a non-accidentd vehicle by presenting inspection records with the result of the inspection; (c) the inspection records of the instant vehicle do not contain any indication on the items of “non-board plate, receipt and exchange” and “major structural upper part” and “B/P”; (d) however, in the opinion column of the special engineer and inspector; (e) in the lower court’s court, E prepared the inspection records at the time, stating that there was a simple seal page; and (e) the said indication was merely an indication that there was only a b/P sign, and there was no important accident and major impact on the inspection records as a result of the inspection conducted by the Defendant at the time of sale of the instant vehicle; and (e) there was no indication on the “B/P.”