The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had an intention to purchase used cars to the victim, and there was no intention to acquire them by fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not operate the pawnba, and that he did not have engaged in the seizure of the vehicle, and that he did not have any intention or ability to sell the used vehicle even if he received the payment from the victim, on the ground that the Defendant did not lend the vehicle as security and has not repaid the vehicle.

① In the first instance, the Defendant: (a) denied that there was no warning that he would sell the 2016-type Benz 1 to KRW 24 million; (b) in the course of questioning with the victim, the Defendant: (c) was operating the pawnpo in the vicinity of the Gangseo Islands; (d) if the Defendant was in operation of the pawnpole in the vicinity of the Gangseo Islands; or (e) if he was in full payment of the gambling money by taking advantage of the vehicle as security, he did not seize the vehicle; (c) H, the nominal owner of the account transferred the money from the victim, is called “the owner of the fund.” However, actual H is a director of the Defendant’s operation; (d) the Defendant’s vehicle photograph and registration certificate showing that the Defendant was in possession of the vehicle for the purchase and sale of the vehicle for the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s deposit money in the account, the nominal owner, who was the Defendant’s owner, in accordance with the direction of the victim.