Residence

Reference domicile

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant is a person who operates the Ulsan 000 Pl.m. 000 Pl.m. in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong 000.

At the time of leasing a vehicle, the Defendant requested customers who do not closely check the condition of the vehicle, to compensate for damages on the ground of the damage of the existing vehicle in the vehicle.

On May 24, 2013, the Defendant lent 40 Helsan 000 00 Litk's loan to the victim KimB, * *** * on the return of a motor vehicle from the above company's possession 40 Helb, and the previous defect house occurred at the bottom of the front one. The Defendant changed 350,00 won at the repair cost.

The defendant received 350,000 won from the victim as repair expenses on the same day and acquired it by fraud.

From this point to February 18, 2014, the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 4,530,000 through the same eight times in the same manner as in the annexed crime list, as shown in the annexed crime list, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Defendant and defense counsel asserted to the purport that the defendant's act does not constitute fraud since the defendant claimed and received reasonable repair expenses from the victims on the part of a siren vehicle damage. However, according to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant's claim against the victims for repair expenses by deceiving the victims who had already been paid repair expenses by another customer as if the victims were damaged, and then the fact that the defendant was paid all or part of the repair expenses by deceiving them as if the victims were damaged, and it is sufficient to view such act as constituting the elements of fraud. Accordingly, the above argument is rejected.)