However, the Defendant thought that he would be the so-called "motor vehicle-related tin" used for the sale of the relevant motor vehicle immediately after purchasing a motor vehicle, and because there is no particular property at the time, there was no intention or ability to repay even if he/she borrowed money from the victim as the purchase price for the motor vehicle.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 46,800,000 won as the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim immediately, and acquired it by deception.

2. According to each of the statements and the register of automobiles and the details of the receipt of principal and interest of E and F in this court, each of the above facts charged by the Defendant sold k9 automobiles to a third party, and the Defendant was unable to pay the installments from June 2014. However, the following circumstances recognized by the Defendant’s investigative agency and this court were as follows: (a) the Defendant did not bear any particular obligation at the time of receipt of the instant loan; (b) from April 2013 to around that time, the Defendant was receiving wages of KRW 4,50,000 for a fixed period from around April 2013 to around that time; (c) the Defendant actually paid KRW 15,853,000 among the vehicle rent to k9, and incidental expenses, such as acquisition tax, 4,740,230 among the vehicle rent; and (d) the Defendant paid KRW 4,740,00 from October 10 to 297, 2013.