The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had the intent and ability to transfer the film I (hereinafter “I”)’s domestic sales right to the victim, but the lower court erred by misunderstanding that the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant and the victim entered into a content printing agreement on April 13, 2010 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and the title 2 of Part III film of the Defendant, including the instant film, is “J” and “K”.

On the same day, the victim agreed to provide the victim with the right to use the domestic edition, and on the other hand, the victim is the defendant with the total amount of KRW 110 million, including the fee of KRW 70,000,000,000 for the remaining film of KRW 2,000,000,000 under the above agreement.

On April 14, 2010, the following day, the Defendant and the victim prepared and certified a certificate of transfer of the right to the film of this case, but on the other hand, the film of this case was acquired by N Co., Ltd. (Representative M) on April 19, 2010 from N Co., Ltd.’s copyright holder (Licensor)O, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to acquire the right to the film of this case. The film of this case was distributed domestically to N Co., Ltd., and thereafter, the film of this case was distributed domestically. ② The contract of this case was for the purpose of transferring the right to the trademark of this case to the victim who has already been lawfully acquired by the Defendant, and was for the purpose of acquiring and transferring the right to the trademark of this case. Thus, at the time of the agreement, the Defendant did not have the right to the film of this case.