A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 8, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of embezzlement by the Incheon District Court, and completed the enforcement of the sentence in the Incheon Detention House on April 10, 2010.

[2012 Highest 1075] On January 11, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the employees of D, a stock company D who act on behalf of the victim Solomon Savings Bank’s lending business, “I want to purchase the used cars in the name of E in 2009 rocketing 1,50,000 won, and will pay 628,640 won each month in equal installments of principal and interest for 36 months with loans of KRW 15,50,000 per share.”

However, the fact is that the defendant is a bad credit holder with approximately KRW 50,000,00 without any particular property or income, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan by delaying the installment payment for the vehicle already purchased, etc. Therefore, as if E takes out a loan, he/she deceivings the damaged company as if E takes out a loan, and then he/she received a loan by taking out the used cars purchased from the loan as collateral, and then he/she again received the loan and used it as business funds or living expenses.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 15.5 million from the victim under his/her name as a loan.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivingd the damaged company and acquired the 15.5 million won.

[2012 Highest 6916]

1. The Defendant is a senior trading company of the “G” in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F building 83, and is a senior with the highest endur.

On November 12, 2011, the Defendant purchased the H used cars from I by the staff of H used cars trading company I in 2009, and became aware of the occurrence of an accident that cut off the troke part of the said cars in addition to the accident that damages Bows, support stands, and pents, etc.

Since the history of the above accident is an important part in calculating the purchase price of the second vehicle, the defendant should notify the purchaser thereof, despite the fact that the defendant should do so.