The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it did not deceiving the victim, that the Defendant had intended to succeed to the name of the passenger car and the obligation for the vehicle loan from the victim (a factual error).

B. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant prepared a motor vehicle lease agreement in the name of the victim R is permitted according to the trust agreement with the victim, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. On August 28, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and three years and six months for the remaining crimes in Seoul Southern District Court. The said judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2019.

Since each crime of the above-mentioned crimes and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, a punishment for each crime as stated in the original judgment shall be sentenced in consideration of equity and the same.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the above ground for ex officio reversal is changed.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, at the time of receiving a loan to purchase a passenger car, the Defendant had already been credit rating 6, and the Defendant paid only one-time installments.