The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the defendant would return money to the victim by seeking a person who has taken over or succeeded to the right to operate the instant department management shop (hereinafter “the instant department management shop”) from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F shop 207.

There is no promise to return the remaining money excluding the value of cosmetics only and used.

In fact, the Defendant made efforts to take over or succeed to the management shop of the skin in this case to L, M, N, etc., but since the victim took out the cosmetic machinery and equipment outside and acted in non-cooperatively for acceptance, there was no attempt to take over it.

Meanwhile, the Defendant was operating “D” in around January 2013, and there was sufficient intent and ability to repay the amount recorded in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In the appellate court’s ex officio examination of the facts charged of this case, the appellate court filed an application for changes in the indictment with the content of the following 3-A, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the revised facts charged, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

The paragraph will be examined.

3. Summary and judgment of the facts charged

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who runs a business under the trade name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C commercial building B B block 216, “D.”

On January 2013, the Defendant purchased a machine and cosmetic from around 2013 to the victim “Around January 2013, the Defendant had a management shop for the skin of this case operated by another person to F.”