The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The offense of fraud is committed against a defendant who is subject to postponement of the term of obligation by deceiving the victim;

2. Determination

A. It is also a property interest in which performance of an obligation is postponed in a crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do1501, Oct. 14, 1986). Therefore, if an obligor delivers a bill to a creditor for the purpose of delaying the maturity of the previous obligation, it shall be deemed a crime of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1723 delivered on November 8, 1983, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim C embezzled 9.5 million won of the sales proceeds to the victim on or around January 8, 2010 upon request of the victim for the sale of a motor vehicle owned by the victim, without returning it to the victim. On or around February 9, 2010, the victim did not have the intent or ability to purchase the out-of-the-counter vehicle, and he would make a full payment to the victim at least seven (7) days with higher interest than the bank if he/she makes an investment in short of money to purchase the out-of-the-counter vehicle." The victim filed a criminal complaint with the victim with the effect that "the victim received 43.5 million won from the victim by fraud, and received 50 million won from the prosecutor's office until February 10, 2011, the victim demanded the victim to withdraw his/her right to pay the above amount of damages (3 million won by 100,010,000 won).