However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the vehicle even if he received the installment from the injured party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 34,50,000 under the pretext of loans on the vehicle in his/her job.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel lent his name to D for the operation of EM, but they did not delegate the purchase of the instant vehicle.

B. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there are documents prepared by the police interrogation protocol (two times to four times) for the Defendant, a letter of accusation under the name of a non-us capital company, a statement made by a F investigation agency, a statement made by a F investigation agency, and a statement made by D in the investigation agency and the court.

1) First of all, the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (two times to four times) is inadmissible by denying the contents in this court.

2) The statement made in F’s investigation agency is that “the Defendant provided the instant vehicle as security, did not repay the loan even after receiving the loan from the said company, and did not receive telephone, and thereafter disposed of the said vehicle.” The Defendant, from the beginning, obtained the loan by deceiving the said company.”

However, as seen below, the telephone number stated in the above loan application is merely just on the side of the prosecution, or the person who disposes of the above vehicle is not the defendant, but also the defendant is not the defendant, and there is no credibility or low value of evidence.

(iii)the investigative agencies of D, and