However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant, who was the representative director of Ilyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, and was in a state of being unable to purchase a vehicle under the name of the defendant, although the defendant was in a state of filing an application for recovery of credit, he was in a state of being unable to purchase a vehicle under the name of the defendant, and E was in a state of being in a state of being employed by the above state of (State)D.

On January 27, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “E would pay a loan under the financial name of the part of the vehicle in order to purchase HG car normally,” to an employee who is not aware of the names of the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. at the above Section D Office.

However, the facts are that the defendant purchased the vehicle in the name of E and provided it as collateral to the bond company, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the installment while actually operating the vehicle.

As such, the Defendant deceivings employees of the victim and received KRW 31 million from the victim under the pretext of financial loans on the part of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the record of the E statement);

1. Each motor vehicle register, specifications of purchase price of motor vehicle, debt confirmation certificate, statement of transaction to be submitted by the suspect, and defense counsel did not intend to acquire the motor vehicle. However, at the time of the purchase of the motor vehicle in this case, the defendant or the defendant and the plaintiff were in a situation in which it was impossible to purchase the motor vehicle normally because there were many debts, and the defendant, even if the purchase of the motor vehicle in this case was intended to obtain the loan as collateral, the defendant had E purchase of the motor vehicle in his own name even though it was thought that it would receive the loan as collateral. After purchasing the motor vehicle in this case, the vehicle in this case was provided as collateral to the bond company