However, in fact, the defendant knew that the above vehicle's repair cost exceeds the value of the vehicle, or that it is impossible to repair the damaged vehicle, or even if it is not possible to perform its function, the borrower received insurance money from the insurance company, and the insurance company received the insurance money, and sold it through public sale or auction. In the case of the transferred vehicle, it was also aware that the value of the damaged vehicle is approximately KRW 300-5 million compared to that of the ordinary vehicle.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 26.6 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant as the price for the above vehicle.

2. On this determination, the Defendant asserts to the effect that he did not deceive the victim on the ground that he did not know about the price of 1,100,000 won since he left the e-mail vehicle of this case from H with 25,500,000 won, but did not display it at the time of purchasing the instant vehicle from H, because he did not damage the computer as the e-mail vehicle at the time of purchasing the instant vehicle from H, and considered him as a vehicle with a e-mailed vehicle with a e-mailed vehicle with a e-maild vehicle,

Therefore, even based on the F’s legal statement, the F knows that there was several accidents, such as the exchange of a panion, in the instant vehicle, and at the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the F would have known that the insured incident was not caused by the “caristory” in the program called the “car” at the time of the purchase of the vehicle, and that it would be 2 to 3 months in the electronic computer.