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 January 11, 2013, the Defendant purchased C 24.5 tons dump trucks at around 42 million won, and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the victim on the condition that the victim would pay the 1,231,556 won each month to the victim each 48 months.

However, even if the defendant entered into the above loan contract with the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the installments to the victim.

As above, the Defendant did not pay the above installment after deceiving the victim and received the delivery of the above vehicle, and acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount of the loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (case of submitting the register of suspect construction machinery and construction machinery);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] - There is no basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person subject to special sentencing) [decision of sentence] - there is no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment for the defendant : there is no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment for the defendant ; the above dump truck was sold by public auction and the defendant paid approximately KRW 8.49 million to the victim; the defendant additionally paid KRW 3.3 million to the defendant; the loan of light management to which the victim acquired the claim by the victim did not want to be punished for the defendant; the damage amount is reasonable; the damage amount is not recovered; the defendant paid only one installment after the loan contract; and the defendant did not make a loan to the victim even if he borrowed another amount equivalent to the amount secured by the vehicle at a different place.