The judgment of the court below (excluding the part of the compensation order) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The victim C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) An act in the sequence 3. and 4 of the attached Table of the judgment of the court below, which caused the victim C to change a vehicle by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles without compensation, which caused the victim C to purchase a rocketing car by bringing the car, shall be deemed to be only one crime of fraud, as a series of acts. In addition, since the acts 8. and 9. in the table of crime Nos. 8. and 9 are only the only victims, and only one crime of fraud is established on a selective basis, since the act in the table of crime No. 8. and 9 are merely the same as the one for the same vehicle, it is deemed to be only one crime of fraud. The judgment of the court below has an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. 2)

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unfluened and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On July 27, 2012, we examine ex officio the point of fraud against the victim C of an ex officio determination (the number No. 4. of crime sight table).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that: (a) the Defendant, by presenting a written installment purchase contract to the victim C with a language and hearing impairment, had the victim sign it by means of deceiving the victim to pay a loan of KRW 30 million to Hyundai Capital and having the victim pay a loan of KRW 30 million to Hyundai Capital and acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to that of the said amount.

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person, making him/her fall into mistake, inducing a dispositive act, thereby gaining profits from property and property. Here, the act of dispositive act means property dispositive act, and it requires subjectively that there should be acts controlled by the defrauded, namely, dispositive intent, and objectively, recognizing the result of dispositive act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do769 Decided April 14, 2011). However, this part of the facts charged is a purchase contract under which the Defendant is obliged to have the victim C pay a loan of KRW 30 million.