The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the victim has a dispute over the ownership of the instant clothing from the beginning, and that the instant clothing has been purchased with knowledge that there was no permission to sell the instant clothing, and the Defendant has the right to dispose of the clothing with knowledge of such fact.

As reliance on and selling the instant clothing to the victim, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the Defendant.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below that found the criminal intent of defraudation and convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence and misconception of the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The reasoning of the lower court’s determination is as follows: (a) in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the evidence, namely, ① the developments leading up to the instant clothing sales contract and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 3 million out of the down payment of the instant clothing sales contract received from the injured party, H appears to be not an employee of the injured party, but to have engaged in the mediation of the instant clothing sales contract; and (b) even if H knew was aware that there was no dispute over the ownership of the instant clothing or any permit for the sale thereof, the victim was aware of such fact from the beginning.

It cannot be seen that the victim purchased the instant clothing for the purpose of selling the Internet, and there is no reason to purchase the instant clothing if he knows that there was no permit for selling the instant clothing for the purpose of selling the Internet, and that there was no dispute over ownership. ④ The Defendant voluntarily stated by the investigative agency that “I would not know whether I would normally trade if I would have received a request, not the internal goods,” (56 pages of investigation record), and ⑤ H was aware by the investigative agency of the fact that “I would not have any permit for selling the instant clothing at the time of the instant clothing sales contract, but there was no problem about the Defendant.”