The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. In fact, the Defendant had consistently inspected and maintained the instant vehicle by misapprehending the legal principles, and there was no talk that the Defendant could not operate the instant vehicle because of a serious corrosion on the lower part of the vehicle from the maintenance engineer.

Therefore, the defendant did not recognize the situation that is the lower frame of the vehicle in this case and sold it. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of deception.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) In a case where a defendant denies an intentional act, which is a subjective element of constituent elements of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of an object.

Unlike the gross negligence, the willful negligence of one kind of intention is the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of the crime to occur.

In light of the above legal principles, the psychological condition of the offender ought to be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, considering how the general public can assess the possibility of criminal facts, based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act performed outside and the situation of the act performed, without depending on the statement of the offender whether the offender was aware of the possibility of criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).