On February 15, 2013, the Defendant purchased K7 passenger cars at a car agency located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would faithfully repay the loan on the face of a passenger car to a person in charge of loaning funds to purchase a passenger car by phone to the victim’s Hyundai Capital.”

However, in fact, the defendant purchased a car with a loan from the victim company, and then immediately sold the car and purchased the car with the intention to lend cash, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan.

As above, the Defendant deceivings a person in charge of the name in the victim company, and caused the victim company to pay KRW 23,400,000 to the said car agency, thereby deceiving the victim company of the amount corresponding to the above amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the second protocol of trial;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint (including an application for loan, register of automobiles, details of deposit, and details of claim);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the choice of punishment [the scope of recommending punishment] The basic area (6-100 million won or less) of types 1 (6-100 million won or less) of general fraud [decision of sentence] The amount of damage resulting from the instant case is reasonable, and the damage is not completely recovered, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments, including the following circumstances.