On October 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract to purchase 1 24 tons of ebeco truck from an affiliated company of the victim company (ju) at the Gyeonggi-si D Co., Ltd. located in Suwon-si; (b) submitted an application for automobile installment financing via F to the effect that “the purchase price of the above vehicle shall be repaid for 48 months if the loan is made; and (c) the Defendant would make a false statement to the effect that “the installment payment shall be repaid for 48 months if the purchase price of the above vehicle is loaned,” while making a telephone conversation with the employees G of the victim company, the Defendant would pay the 20th day payment each month from the account in the name of the victim company on the face of the week.”

However, the defendant purchased the above dump truck and sold it through F immediately, and planned to avoid the repayment of the installment of the victim company through the application for personal rehabilitation, and even if the victim company borrowed the purchase price of the motor vehicle from the victim company, such as there was no particular property at the time and the credit card payment amounting to KRW 12 million, there was no intention or ability to pay it properly.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim company, had the victim company pay KRW 33 million in the name of the purchase price of the motor vehicle on the same day to the victim company, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police interrogation protocol of the accused (including H statements);

1. A H statement;

1. Recording records;

1. Application for installment financing, application for loan approval, inquiry about details of receipt, copy of transfer certificate, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to construction machinery register;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts are deemed to have no actual profit from the crime of this case, and there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as against one’s mistake, but they are also considered to have committed the crime of this case.