All of the original judgment and the second original judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the case of the 2014 Highest 3764, 2014 Highest 4679) is an indispensable act to complete this part of the fraud crime and included in the fraud crime. Therefore, it is deemed that the crime of special larceny constitutes an act after the crime, or that it was committed at the same time as the fraud, and thus, there is an ordinary competition relationship.

B. Each sentence (the first instance court: the imprisonment with prison labor for four years and the second instance court: the imprisonment with prison labor for three years) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In a case of fraud, the content of which is the taking-off of property as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing the victim's property

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012 Decided October 11, 2007, etc.). The crime of fraud in this part is established upon deceiving the victims to sell each money in the name of the purchase price, although the defendant et al. had no intent or ability to finally transfer ownership of each passenger car to AS and AV. Thus, the crime of fraud is established immediately after the defendant et al. received the money from the victims. This part of the crime of special larceny is different from each of the above crimes of fraud, basic facts, and legal interests infringed upon. Thus, the crime of fraud is established after the victim et al. received the money from the victims.

No act can be deemed as a single act against each of the above frauds.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing, even if it is based on all the data submitted by the court below and the trial court, the defendant's role in the above crimes is somewhat weak.

It is difficult to see that the above crimes were simply involved, and the defendant has a record of being subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and has the same kind of crime.