(2015Kadan423) The Defendant was a person who operated the G Motor Vehicle Trading Company in the F in the Won-si, and, on May 30, 2013, the victim AA located in the Z on May 30, 2013, falsely stated that the victim would sell the vehicle at a good price and make the purchase price. However, even if the Defendant received and sold the vehicle from the victim due to the excessive debt, he did not have the intent to pay the purchase price to the victim for his personal debt, and thus, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the purchase price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the victim a gallon AB car and salva, which had been parked in the seat, from the victim.

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received property equivalent to 4.2 million won.

(2015 Highest 491)

1. On November 10, 2014, the Defendant against the victim AC told the victim to the effect that “on the face of the delivery of the party’s own hurfed car to the victim at the domicile of the victim AC located in the city of Won-si, the Defendant would sell and sell it at KRW 3.5 million to the person who purchased the party’s hurf car at the hurf AC located in the city of Won-si.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant received a delivery from the victim and sold the said car, the Defendant intended to use the purchase price for personal debt repayment, etc. Accordingly, even if the said car was delivered from the victim, there was no intention or ability to deliver the purchase price to the victim.

On November 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as such; and (b) received from the victim the AE AE-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-Wur-C

2. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “When issuing KRW 6.3 million to the victim, he/she will purchase one of the vehicle from AG and AWn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-W

However, even if the defendant received the above money from the victim, the defendant is an individual's obligation.