beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.11.26 2020고정503

사기등

Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won.

2. The defendants are above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a operator of C, a secondhand trading company, and the defendant A is a secondhand with C.

1. Where an automobile dealer sells an automobile or assists in sale and purchase, he/she shall not make a false notification as to attachment or registration of mortgage;

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2019, Defendant A sold KRW 37,300,00 to F, according to the direction of Defendant B, one low-priced vehicle at the E office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and according to the direction of Defendant B, Defendant A stated the facts charged in the above vehicle as “3,350,000 won” in the facts charged in the H’s name. However, according to the entries in the register of automobiles, it appears to be a clerical error in the “3,50,000 won.”

In spite of the establishment of the right to collateral security, the attachment of the certificate of automobile transfer (for automobile dealer transaction) and the registration of mortgage are written as “not”.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and violated the duty of disclosure by the motor vehicle dealer.

2. The Defendants conspired with each other on August 20, 2019, stated the facts charged in the E Office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, as stated in paragraph (1) as “3,350,000 won” under the name of H as “3,350,000 won.” However, according to the entries in the register of automobiles, this is deemed as a clerical error in the “3,350,000 won,” and thus, the Defendants corrected the said facts.

In selling the G low-priced motor vehicle, the mortgage right of which is established, to the victim F, Defendant A entered the same as “no” in the column for seizure of a motor vehicle transfer certificate (for the motor vehicle dealer transaction) and registration of mortgage, etc. as if the mortgage was not established on the motor vehicle, and deceiving the victim as if the mortgage was not established on the motor vehicle. The victim believed to be true, who was wired the amount of KRW 37,300,000 from the victim to the I bank account in the name of the defendant B with the purchase price of the

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendants are governed by this law.

참조조문