The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant appears to be the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) in the criminal facts column C in the lower judgment at the time of the purchase of the instant vehicle.

Around November 25, 2010, the payment date of the vehicle purchase price was received from the company of this case, and thereafter, the company of this case did not receive allowances from the company of this case and did not pay the vehicle purchase price by paying the cash possessed in divorce with the wife to the wife. Thus, it does not deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to pay the vehicle purchase price.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., ① the defendant was notified by the company of October 20, 2010 prior to the settlement of the purchase price of the vehicle of this case that the defendant would have received a notice from the company of this case to resolve the overdue rate of insurance purchased by the defendant; ② the defendant was allowed to purchase some insurance in an abnormal manner, such as payment of insurance premiums, and the insurance solicitor's payment structure, etc., it seems that it could have sufficiently been able to fully recognize the circumstances that it would be difficult to receive ordinary allowances from the insurance company at the time of the purchase of the vehicle of this case; ③ the defendant purchased the vehicle of this case with the vehicle of this case at KRW 79 million at the time of the settlement of the purchase price of the vehicle of this case and received cash of KRW 68 million,000,000 and disposed of it to other person.