If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant, as a used vehicle dealer, was cut from C due to an accident, was asked to sell the BMW 520 (vehicle Number D) vehicles that were processed together.

The Defendant: (a) sent the main specifications indicated on the basis of the foregoing vehicle as a non-accidentless vehicle to a used vehicle dealer, and was contacted by the victim E, who was aware that the said vehicle was an accident-free vehicle, to buy the said vehicle.

On September 26, 2010, the Defendant participated in the inspection of the performance and condition of the foregoing vehicle from the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F along with the victim, resulting in the Defendant’s fault on the inspection of the performance and condition of the foregoing vehicle to receive the inspection record of the used vehicle performance and condition of the vehicle, which recorded the contents of the accident-free vehicle due to the mistake of the inspection personnel, and the Defendant

In other words, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the victim to purchase the said vehicle at KRW 21,730,000, which is an ordinary trading price 21,730,000, by making it false to the effect that the victim would not meet the “accidentless vehicle” for the said vehicle.

On the same day, the Defendant received the payment of the above vehicle from the victim, and acquired 21,730,000 won in total by transferring 130,000 won to one bank, 13,000,000 won to a new bank, and 8,600,000 won to a national bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement concerning G;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Inspection records of each automobile performance condition;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the results of analysis of the details of transactions with Saemaul Depository);

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;