The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant received the instant vehicle from the victimized person at the time of the instant case, and received a certificate of seal imprint for sale stating the identity of the purchaser; and (b) the Defendant paid the said vehicle to the account of the injured person for sales, etc.

I had to think of the intention to commit each of the crimes of this case.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The Defendant was the nominal owner of the instant vehicle.

On April 1, 2016, the F received the vehicle from the F to purchase the said vehicle, and received the certificate of seal impression for sale, the registration certificate, and the Defendant’s transfer on the same day, and deposit KRW 33 million with the account used for the phishing crime by mistake as the purchase price in the F’s name on the same day.

② The F sent the instant vehicle to the police officer on April 2, 2016, upon confirmation of the fact that the purchase price had not been paid, the F demanded measures to the effect that the Defendant and the instant vehicle were scaming damage on the part of the Defendant, an individual, etc. during the instant vehicle trade (F and the police officer demanded the Defendant at the investigative agency to return the documents to the effect that “if the vehicle did not yet have been transferred the name of the vehicle, the Defendant would not speak and request the Defendant to return the relevant documents.” Therefore, on April 2, 2016, the Defendant did not enter into the instant sales contract with the police officer on behalf of the police officer on the part of the Defendant and the individual, etc., or subsequently requested it to do so.