[2016 Highest 195]

1. On August 2013, 2013, the Defendant may purchase at the victim D’s house located in the Hayangyang-gun C, the victim at KRW 20,000,000, the Defendant purchased the victim’s “the victim’s house of KRW 35,000,000 of the market price.”

First of all, 15,00,000 won is paid, the bill of indictment stating that “I will deliver and transfer the ownership of the vehicle owned by the rental car within six months from the date of delivery of the rocketing earth immediately, and will transfer the ownership of the vehicle owned by the rental car.” It can be purchased at the enclosed of the rocketing car equivalent to KRW 35,00,000 at the market price.

In the event that only KRW 15,00,000 is paid without additional costs, it is stated that the owner will deliver the rocketing vehicle immediately and transfer the ownership of the vehicle owned by the Mascar company within six months. However, in reflecting the result of the review, the basic facts were identical and partly modified as stated in its reasoning to the extent that it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense.

The term "" refers to the following.

However, the Defendant was unable to repay the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 150,00,00 in the name of his parent with respect to the pertinent business because there was no particular income from the business difficulties operated at the time. On the other hand, as the Defendant thought from the beginning that he lent a rocketing motor vehicle from another siren enterprise to deliver it to the victim, so even if he received the money from the injured party, he paid all the remaining installments within six months and purchased the said vehicle and did not have the intent or ability to transfer ownership to the victim.

As above, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant’s father’s father’s account (F) in the name of the Defendant for the purchase of the vehicle on September 5, 2013 from the victim, by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) resisting that the Defendant continued not to deliver the vehicle at a non-fluent place on November 12, 2013; and (c) resisting the victim’s ownership for the foregoing reasons.