The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted) of this case was first purchased by the defendant, and the victim merely lent only the name of the victim, and there was no reason to confirm the installment period, etc. from the victim.

After several months from the defendant, the defendant had the victim take over the above-mentioned purchase cost and the remaining installment period by the method of deceiving the victim, and had the victim pay the victim an installment amount which exceeds the original expected amount.

In consideration of these circumstances, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspended sentence) is unreasonable as it is excessively unfilled.

2. On March 8, 2017, the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within 20 days, which is the submission period for the written reason for appeal, even though he/she received a notice of receipt of records of trial from this court on March 8, 2017, and the petition of appeal does not state the reason for appeal, but ex officio examines the lower judgment as to misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the guilty portion

3. Judgment ex officio (as to the conviction of the lower judgment)

A. On March 27, 2013, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged: (a) borrowed a purchase price of KRW 65 million from the two capitals in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.; and (b) purchased a mid-term scraper (D; hereinafter “the instant scraper”) with a loan of KRW 65 million from the two capitals in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.; and (c) set up a collateral security to the two capitals in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

On October 2013, the Defendant, using a letter of waiver of the equipment for the instant digging machines possessed by the representative E of the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., the Defendant sold 32 million won to a mid-term seller of heavy equipment and was unable to identify the whereabouts of the instant digging machines.

As a result, the defendant sells and conceals the so-called "the instant digging pool" which is the object of the right to collateral security of the two parties to the dispute resolution plan, thereby making two parties to the dispute resolution plan.