If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On February 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased cubs car from this Chapter to Espons Co., Ltd., Ltd., a partner branch in the Sinsi-si, the Defendant: (b) made a “application for cubs loan”; (c) made a loan of KRW 9,200,000,000 to the Defendant, to offer the said car as security and pay the said KRW 346,139 every month for every 36 months from February 4, 2014 to February 5, 2017.”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he would transfer the above car to another person, and there was no intention or ability to pay the installments of the above loan.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim company, and he acquired 9.2 million won from the victim to the foreign exchange account (D) in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Motor Vehicle Registration Register to accusations, applications for loans, terms and conditions of loans, written review records, written statements of deposits, statements of claims, certificates of personal seal impressions, and other documents submitted;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the defendant was unable to express his intent or ability to pay the installments of the loan, the crime of this case is very poor, such as preparing an application for the loan and dumping the possession to a third party immediately after the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, and the time when the defendant acquired the money from the victim company is about three years prior to the date of receiving the money from the victim company, and there is no recovery of damage with the exception of making the installments of the loan, and the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime before the judgment was rendered.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects the mistake, and the amount of the fraud of this case is not a relatively large amount.