The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Fraud: (a) On October 10, 2014, the Defendant, despite having no intention or ability to deliver a coos car to the victim F, made a false statement as if he/she would immediately deliver the coos car to the victim F; and (b) acquired the price of KRW 15 million from the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) Around April 2013, which is the primary charge of embezzlement: the Defendant, on March 11, 2013, took custody of six automobiles owned by the lease company owned by the victim H for the purpose of securing the said six automobiles. On April 2013, the Defendant embezzled the said two automobiles by disposing of the Jenz E300 cars owned by Korea Social Co., Ltd. and the Cubs car owned by Korea Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant two automobiles”).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the act of disposing of the above car constitutes an act of ex post facto ex post facto ex post facto act, as long as the defendant committed a crime of storing the car of this case with the custody of the car of this case, is erroneous in the misunderstanding

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the judgment on the fraud, it was proved that the fraud of the accused was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① The victim and S: “The Defendant, who had the victim delivered the Cub car to the victim on October 10, 2014, said that the Defendant was using the CMW car between the parties by the scheduled date of delivery on October 10, 2014, was using the BMW car inevitably on the same day.

“Statement” is made to the effect that “.”

However, on October 16, 2014, the scheduled date of delivery of the Coos car by the defendant of the Hoos car has not passed.