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

On November 7, 2016, the Defendant purchased D Co., Ltd. (E) from the office located in Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and entered into a loan contract with the victim D Co., Ltd. to receive KRW 39,000,000 from the victim D Co., Ltd. on the condition of equal redemption of the principle of 1,889,126 each month between 24 months and then entered into a contract for the loan under the condition of equal redemption of the principle of 1,889,126, the charge of the mortgage in the name of the victim is stated as “mortgage” but it is corrected as the bond value of KRW 19.5 million.

set up this chapter.

However, the Defendant intended to offer a vehicle as security to borrow money from a credit service provider called F, and was not in fact intended to possess and operate the above vehicle, and even if the vehicle was purchased with the above loan from the injured party, it did not have the intent or ability to pay the money normally.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 39,000,000 won from the victim to the Gwangju Bank Account (G) in the name of the D Co., Ltd. on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A copy of an application for a complaint, a copy of the application for a middle or high-speed debate, and the register of motor vehicles (attached to the list No. 5);

1. A copy of investigation report (public perusal of the case forwarding records of the Gwangju Seo-gu Police Station), and copy of the case forwarding report;

1. According to the above evidence, the defendant's opinion and copy of the judgment attached to the investigation report (the statement of opinion, etc. in the investigation) are recognized as having been aware that he could not repay his normal loan normally even though he had sufficiently known that he could not repay his loan normally, and dolusent intent is recognized as to the intention of repayment or the deception of ability. Meanwhile, the motor vehicle which was the object of the mortgage is immediately delivered to the creditor of the defendant.