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 summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, knowing that the Defendant, after entering into a lease agreement, was to take over the vehicle and sell the vehicle in the large lane, thereby taking part in the crime of embezzlement by J, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case by the ex officio judgment prosecutor, the name of the crime is “Fraud” and the applicable provisions of law are “Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act”, and the facts charged were applied for changes in exchange for the following, and this Court permitted this.

As such, since the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

(Therefore, there is no separate judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts about the embezzlement. [No judgment as to the altered charge] On August 13, 2012, the defendant paid rent of KRW 1,479,00 per month for E and Fridi A6 car, a employee of the victim Don Capital Co., Ltd. and Fridi A6 car in the second floor coffee shop in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for 48 months, and entered into a lease contract with the content that the defendant uses the above vehicle.

However, in fact, the defendant entered into a lease contract with I and entered into a contract with I to receive a loan. In fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the above lease fee while operating a vehicle by leasing the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with I, deceiving the victim and let the victim deliver the I-A6 car to the I-Japan at that time, thereby deceiving the above vehicle of 72,65,160 won at the market price.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds of ex officio reversal.