If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On February 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased D Ecoos vehicle from the “C” used vehicle trading company located in the Daegu metropolitan month B; (b) concluded a false statement to the effect that, through (c) an installment financing agency case, the Defendant loaned KRW 25 million to the 1,024,650 per week for the loan of KRW 1,024,650 per week; and (c) deliver the vehicle as security by creating a mortgage on the said Ecoos vehicle and failing to repay the loan.”

However, the Defendant did not have any particular property or income, and there was a loan obligation of KRW 13 million to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, a national card, or a modern card, etc., and even if the Defendant was granted a loan from the victim as the purchase price, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the principal and interest thereof. The above Ecoos vehicle was transferred to a third party after the purchase, and it was thought that it would have been transferred to a third party, and thus there was no intention or ability to deliver the vehicle to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 25 million from the victim under the pretext of the ordinary loan, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of personal credit report;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud as to the defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) the Defendant was operating the mobile phone wholesale business at the time of purchasing the instant vehicle, but the Defendant excluded the cost of living, such as not being able to import, and there was no import.