[Defendant B] The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.

Defendant

C is in charge of the education of new employees and business support (the recovery of bonds) at the F Company G branch offices under E, and Defendant B is the head of the F branch office G branch office of the F Company, and the head of the F Company G, who collects and disposes of the so-called “bonds” of the F Company as Defendant C, through public sale, etc., Defendant A is a motor vehicle dealer who sells used cars under the K Complex L through H, I and J. Defendant D is a business trip performance inspection engineer who inspects the performance of the auction vehicle under M.

Defendant

A made a false vehicle diagnosis report with respect to F company bond vehicles sold at an Internet auction site, such as “N” and “O”, and made an auction on the basis of this, as if the performance checkup engineer added the mileage to actual condition or replaced more parts, and thereby, the bidder may waive the bid or obtain a successful bid at a low price, and the defendant may easily receive a successful bid if he/she made a bid at a low price. The proposal was made to Defendant D, an engineer belonging to “N” and “O”, the performance checkup company of the F company, and agreed to use the bond vehicles subject to recovery of the F company, and to divide the proceeds from the sale of the successful bid by obtaining the consent, respectively.

1. Defendant C, Defendant A, and Defendant D’s co-principal were recovered from PK9 vehicles, which are the credit vehicles of the F Company, and the vehicle was informed to Defendant A of the location of the vehicle. Defendant A contacted Defendant D and sent the odometer a photograph of the instrument plate of the vehicle that covered the odometer to Kakaox, and had Defendant D conduct a false performance inspection while sending the odometer. Defendant D, even though the actual odometer of the said vehicle was 40,780 km, was cut off to 167,242 km, was set up and auction auction via M.