beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.19 2016고단7431

사기

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for one year, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Defendant B] On July 17, 2014, the Daegu High Court sentenced one year and six months of the suspension of execution to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the decision was finalized on July 25, 2014. On January 29, 2015, the Daegu District Court sentenced two years of suspension of execution to a two-year imprisonment due to fraud, etc. and became final and conclusive on June 12, 2015.

[Judgment of the court below] The Defendants, along with G, gathered at the official brokerage office of D operation in Ansan-si around October 2012, 2012, purchased used cars from F under the name of E Co., Ltd. operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “E”), and purchased used cars, and offered funds for the operation of Defendant A by disposing of the relevant cars.

On November 8, 2012, the Defendants entered the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H along with G on the said public offering and waited for the surrounding areas. Defendant A and G enter the “I” on the first floor of the H underground, and purchased one of the K7 used cars (J) under the name of E in the name of the employee in the name of the said H, and make it false that E would actually use the said vehicle and pay the normal installment of the vehicle. Defendant A, as instructed by G, prepared an application for the vehicle installment installment of a used car requesting a loan of KRW 20 million to the victim FF Co., Ltd., and had the said employee send the said application to the victim FF Co., Ltd., and on the same day, set up a right to collateral security on the said vehicle.

However, in fact, the Defendants and G applied for installment financing of used cars in mind of financing the purchased vehicle by disposing of the vehicle that Defendant A was urgently needed at the time, and there was no thought that the Defendant continued to own and use the said vehicle, or that the victim could exercise the security interest.