[criminal records] On October 7, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 20, 2016.

[2] On April 19, 2013, at the C Office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant obtained a loan from the victim company to 28.5% per annum from the victim company, and purchased middle benz automobiles, and instead, paid 2,108,330 won per month during 48 months, and concluded an agreement to set up a collateral security in the name of the victim company on the said benz automobiles as collateral.

However, at the time, the Defendant had a loan amounting to 1.6 billion won, and the Defendant did not properly operate the E dental services operated by Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and thus, it was difficult for the Defendant to pay benefits to his employees. In such a situation, the Defendant first purchased a vehicle with a loan from the victim company from the beginning, and then offered it as a collateral to the bond company and offered it as a security to the bond company, and thus, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan as promised to the victim company.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim company, obtained a loan of KRW 60 million from the victim company, and purchased Fenenz CSSS car, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to that amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A supplementary statement of G criminal complaints;

1. An application for the second installment plan;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (a separate judgment);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to deal with concurrent crimes, but the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, such as the circumstance that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not much significant, even though the damage was not recovered.