The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

The Defendant leased and operated Maurel from F, which was the owner of the “Eurel” (hereinafter referred to as “Maurel”) located in Gumi-si, and the Maurur was sold to the victim G, etc. on August 1, 2011 due to voluntary auction.

On August 1, 2011, the Defendant assessed the corporeal movables provisionally seized (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) at KRW 15 million on or around July 6, 201, as the F was provisionally seized on or around July 6, 2011, on the part of the victim G, who found in order to receive the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her own or her her her her her her her her her her her her/ her her her her her/ her her her her her her/ her her her/ her her her/ her her her her/ her her her her/ her her

After that, around August 10, 2011, when the Defendant had had the instant corporeal movables seized by an execution officer upon the creditor I’s delegation of enforcement by the creditor I, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “on August 12, 2011, upon contact with the victim, the Defendant would deliver all of the movable property at the face of payment of KRW 30 million, and would allow the Defendant to operate the business from August 15, 201.”

However, when the Defendant had the instant corporeal movables seized according to the delegation of execution by other creditors, it was thought that the Defendant received money from the victim without notifying the victim, and then did not have the intent or ability to deliver the instant corporeal movables to the victim without legal problems.

As can be seen, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received money from the victim from August 12, 201 to August 15, 201, and acquired money from the victim for the transfer of the instant corporeal movables from August 12, 201.

2. The lower court’s adoption.