【The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on September 15, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 23, 2017.

【Criminal fact-finding on February 25, 2015, the Defendant falsely told the victim B to seek a SS3 car and KRW 20 million, a sM3 car, on the Y Y, at a place where it is difficult to know of the fact-finding on February 25, 2015.

However, the fact is that a vehicle with a heavy halog has no substantial value since the mortgage was established on the 30 million won debt, and the owner C of a vehicle with a heavy halog is cancelled the consignment, and the defendant was not entitled to sell the vehicle with a heavy halog and there was no right to sell the vehicle. The defendant was thought to use the vehicle with a monetary payment from the injured party, and therefore there was no intention or ability to make a car with a heavy halog and a car.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired the victim by delivery of SM3 car and 20 million won check at the market price of 7 million won on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the examination of the person in question);

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. A check to be issued;

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of the place of use of KRW 20 million delivered by the suspect who has inflicted damage on the suspect);

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history and investigation reports (report on the fact that an appellate court of the same kind of crime continues to exist);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code for the Handling of Concurrent Crimes: Provided, That even though the amount of damage caused by the sentencing in the first sentence of Article 39(1) is not considerable than KRW 27 million, it is not agreed with the victim; the victim is seeking the punishment of the defendant; and the escape of the victim is disadvantageously taken into account; and the facts constituting a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Code are considered as favorable circumstances in the arguments of this case.