The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts only introduced a person who will purchase the instant vehicle to B, and did not have been involved in the loan of installment payments.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant’s imprisonment on September 28, 2010 with prison labor for six months from the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch for larceny, and two years from the suspension of execution (No. 2010dan2119). The Defendant’s judgment became final and conclusive on October 6, 2010.

Since the crime of this case is related to the crime subject to the above final judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and equity in cases where a concurrent judgment is rendered pursuant to Article 39(1)

The judgment below

The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect, since the application of Acts and subordinate statutes omits the processing of concurrent crimes.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, and this is examined below.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that B was trying to acquire a considerable amount of the purchase price of the instant vehicle from the victim and dispose of it and immediately dispose of it, was involved in the process of purchasing the instant vehicle in the name of B and receiving a loan equivalent to the purchase price of the instant vehicle from the victim, and it is recognized that he directly sold the instant vehicle to another person and divided the instant vehicle with B to receive the sale price, so the Defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant acquired the loan of KRW 19 million from the victim in collusion with B.