The judgment below

Of them, the part of the case in the 2015 Highest 879 is reversed.

In regard to the crime of the 2015 Highest 879 case, the defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part in the case of 2015 Godan879) did not mean that the instant truck, which was imported at the time when the establishment of the right to collateral security was requested by the victim, was cleared of the instant truck, and the Defendant merely cancelled the right to collateral security after being delivered, and that “the termination of the right to collateral security shall be cancelled by August 31, 2008 with refund of value-added tax and transport fee,” and there was no intention

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2015 J. 879: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, 2015 J. 1062: Imprisonment for 6 months and suspended execution for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part of the case in question)

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who operates equipment leasing business with the trade name of Seoul C, Inc. D.

On June 1, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E (hereinafter “Dump truck”) that “The Defendant would terminate the right to collateral by receiving value-added tax and transport charges for dump truck after three months from the establishment of the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the victim, as it is necessary to establish the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the victim.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was delinquent in paying taxes of KRW 15,392,740 at the time, and was obligated to pay KRW 200 million to F, etc., and paid rent of KRW 40 million each month for dump trucks in possession. Since the dump trucks could not be paid value-added tax because they could not receive value-added tax due to a relationship without the construction site, they could not be refunded because they could not receive value-added tax because they were to import the dump trucks under the terms of delivery (F.O.B). Therefore, there was no transportation charge, so there was no intention or ability to terminate the right to collateral security established on real estate owned by the victim after three months.