However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 29, 2011, the Defendant drafted a “application for a loan for the purchase of a vehicle in the middle and high speed” and “application for the goods of modern capital” at the victim Hyundai Capital Office, Co., Ltd. located in Incheon Seo-gu, and signed and sealed the agreement directly to purchase a vehicle in the middle and high speed C car in 2010, while lending KRW 29,00,000 from the injured party to 36 months of the loan period and interest rate 27.5475% per annum.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to purchase a heavy-time vehicle because he had been living in a old-age room without certain income at the time, and did not intend or ability to repay the amount borrowed from the injured party, and prepared the above contract in exchange for the use of the above contract from the injured party. Therefore, even if he received an application for a loan from the injured party, he did not think that the loan would be fully repaid or used as a normal heavy-time vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, in collusion with the above, led the victim to deception, and caused the victim to deliver the car amounting to KRW 29,900,000 at the market price, around that time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A supplementary statement to criminal complaints;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to apply the debtor's basic information, examination table, application for loans for purchasing motor vehicles, and application for modern capital goods;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: Circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s failure to recover damage: the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime by willful negligence; and the Defendant’s profits acquired by the instant crime are relatively short of food, prepaid phones, and cash.