On October 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of occupational embezzlement in the same court and was sentenced to two years of suspension on the 24th of the same month.

The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in loan brokerage business with a person who intends to purchase a used motor vehicle with a loan from the name of “E” in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu, as well as a person who has been engaged in loan brokerage business for which a fee is paid.

1. On March 22, 2013, the Defendant, at the above E office, made a false statement to the effect that “10% of the loans, if a loan is mediated, shall be collected from the lending company as a fee.” The Defendant, which introduced the lending case, shall be paid as a rebates to the persons related to the used car company who made the lending, and at the rate of 4 through 6% of the loans, shall be paid as 1% of the loans if a loan is lent a business fund to be paid as rebates to the middle and middle company, and the lending money shall be deposited into the passbook opened in the name of the victim (victim) and shall be transferred to the head of the Tong to be managed.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, such as at the time, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the money, for instance, the Defendant paid a debt of approximately KRW 130,000 to KRW 10,000,000 in the form of a prompt term.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 29.9 million from the time of receiving the remittance from the victim as the borrowed money, and received the total amount of KRW 84,870,000 from May 3, 2013 as shown in the annexed crime list from May 3, 2013, and acquired it as the borrowed money.

2. On April 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant received a loan from the Defendant for the purchase of used cars under the name of the Defendant’s wife G and repaid part of the loan with the loan, and the loan will be repaid at home.”

However, even if the defendant has obtained a loan under the name of his wife G, he shall be the victim with the loan.