The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement of victim D staff of the ground for appeal, the Defendant purchased a vehicle from the injured party by means of installment financing loans, and was planned to immediately sell the said vehicle to the injured party on the following day, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the amount properly while using the said vehicle. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendant had received the vehicle from the injured party by deceiving the injured party.

However, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the reasons for appeal by authority, and the prosecutor maintained the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged. In addition, the prosecutor added the same contents as the statement in the column of the criminal history as stated below to the facts charged, and the name of the crime includes “influence of exercise of rights” as stated in the applicable law, an application for changes in the indictment was filed with the contents that add “Article 323 of the Criminal Act and Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” as stated in the applicable law, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained due to the change in the subject matter of the

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the primary facts charged still are subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On February 11, 2015, the primary Defendant is seeking to purchase a car at a car C agency located in the Sinsan-gu Seoul-si around Manyang-si on February 11, 2015, and D, an employee of the said agency, “a car at a car rate.”

B. The mother and her mother made a false statement to the effect that they would complete the principal and interest of a set of money that they would purchase and use in a set of money.

However, the facts are that the defendant's financial right without any particular property.