The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant, who had considerable knowledge about the transactions of the used vehicle with the intention to trade the used vehicle for more than 40 years as a summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), believed that he/she was a non-accidentd vehicle only on the record of inspection of performance status of the used vehicle of this case which was not guaranteed for the used vehicle of this case;

Now, at least, the instant vehicle could not be seen as an accident-free vehicle with knowledge that it was an accident-free vehicle that received a bitle panel and a quota panel, and deceiving the victim through F.

may be seen.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On August 7, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant stated that “F, who was requested to purchase a heavy vehicle from the victim E in the “D” operated by the Defendant with the Defendant’s management of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 39th floor, sold the vehicle for the Cub accident with the vehicle without accident at KRW 29 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant concealed that the above vehicle was a vehicle involved in an accident that accepted a string and a quota panel, and made a false statement.

Ultimately, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim through F; (b) received the remittance of KRW 29 million from the damaged person for the purchase of the vehicle; (c) obtained pecuniary benefits of KRW 5 million in the difference between the vehicle without accident and the market price of the vehicle.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant introduced the instant vehicle to F as a non-accidentd vehicle; (b) presented a record of checking the performance status of used cars issued by H Co., Ltd. at the time of introducing the instant vehicle to F; (c) indicated the instant vehicle as an accident in the performance record; and (d) found that there was no indication in the type of guarantee type (self-guarantee or insurance guarantee) of the performance record book.