The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (crime of fraud against Victim AF) Defendant was handed over a vehicle to the victim’s thought that he would sell the vehicle.

In this regard, the above vehicle was not sold, and the defendant was entitled to directly transfer the name of the above vehicle to the victim and to succeed to the installment of the vehicle.

The victim accepted it.

Since then, the defendant transferred the name of the above vehicle, and borne the installment of the vehicle for 18 months.

Therefore, the defendant by deceiving the victim and acquired the above vehicle from the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

In light of the prosecutor (Defendant A) 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (the part without charge), Defendant BK and BO’s statement, financial transaction details between the Defendant and BK, lease agreement, etc., the Defendant could be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the automobile supplied by BK was the victim’s ownership, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at around November 2013, declared the victim AF that “AF would deliver a vehicle once the victim would sell the victim’s BMWX6 car in high height.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to sell the BMW X6 car to the injured party even if he received the BMW X6 car from the above injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby, 3,212,935 won at the market price on the same day from the victim.