The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: the victim shall be deemed to have been in a contract with the knowledge of not only the conditions prior to entering into the admission contract as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but also the legal relationship established on the vehicle, and even though the defendant does not have any explicit or implied intent to deceive the victim, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below (1) are as follows.

The defendant is the operator of D's personal business who engages in food waste collection and transportation business in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 217, and is the representative director of E's company that produces fertilizers due to collected food waste, and the victim F is the person who entered into a contract with E.

On November 201, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim and E-owned G 5 tons of food waste collection with respect to the truck at the above office around November 2011, and entered into a vehicle sale contract and a truck management operation contract.

However, in fact, the above truck was set up a right to collateral security of the maximum amount of KRW 50 million. From April 2009 to April 201, 201, there was a seizure established on May 11, 2010 from the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “National Health Insurance Corporation”) the employees’ pension and health insurance premiums in arrears. As such, the Defendant was obligated to notify the victim of this fact in order to adjust the vehicle sale price.

Nevertheless, the defendant was delivered 75 million won under the name of the vehicle sale price and the deposit money for the 22th of the same month from November 21, 201, from the victim who was unaware of the fact that the above fact was defective due to the failure to notify the above fact.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

(2) this.