2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as an article of ready-mixeds, is engaged in intermediate business as a broker for high-speed motor vehicle trade.

On June 5, 2014, the Defendant would pay KRW 44 million to the Victim C with the principal and interest on the loan of KRW 39 million as security for used cars.

There is no concern to see damage because the market price of used vehicles of bengris reaches KRW 7-8,000.

“The above victim agreed to do so, and received 36 million won on the same day from the next victim after he delivered the vehicle and she was transferred 36 million won on the same day and 3 million won on the following day, respectively.

While the Defendant continued to demand the payment of principal and interest from the above damage, on October 13, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “F” in contact with the said victim in the vicinity of the “F” used car sales store located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and thus, the Defendant changed the bench vehicle.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not appear at the time, but did not have the intention or ability to pay the principal and interest promised to the victim even if he received the said vehicle from the victim, because the Defendant thought that he would transfer this vehicle to the middle and high sales company and only receive the brokerage commission.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, obtained a certificate of event vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) equivalent to KRW 70,000,000 from the injured party and acquired the certificate from the injured party.

B. The lower court, without any reasonable doubt, proven that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant had deceptioned the victim as stated in the facts charged or had the intent to commit fraud.

see.