At around 12:00 on April 3, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that if the Defendant purchased a truck under the name of the victim to the victim EA through DW, an employee, in the DZ operated by the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

However, the fact that the Defendant had already been in arrears with 200 million won, and the amount that he had not repaid to the customer was in excess of 500 million won, and that he had a large amount of obligation, such as the commencement of compulsory execution with respect to the Defendant’s assets, so there was no intention or ability to pay the installment as

The Defendant had the victim purchase one of the cargo vehicles of an amount equivalent to 18 million won at the market price around that time, and received the same from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Second protocol of suspect examination of DW by the police;

1. Statement of the police statement of the EA;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the vehicle register, business registration certificate, content certificate, certificate of automobile insurance coverage, and loan specifications;

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act for the reason of sentencing of the crime of this case for the punishment of the crime of this case is that the defendant, who has been punished three times by the same kind of crime, has taken the victim by deceiving the victim, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing, such as the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, family environment, etc., where the defendant is against, part of the installment payments, the transfer of cargo to the victim, etc.