A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment on November 6, 2009 became final and conclusive on October 29, 2009.

On May 14, 2009, the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the victim's name-free employee to purchase the victim's vehicle BM7 with a high-ranking employee at the time of SM7 passenger vehicle at the location of Silsi Korea (State). The Defendant agreed to pay the loan amounting to KRW 27,10,000 from May 15, 2009 to May 25, 2012 by 4.9% per annum.

However, in fact, the defendant purchased the above car and planned to sell it immediately, and there was no intention or ability to operate the above car and pay the loan.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 27,100,000 from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Original register of automobile registration, installment financing and loan agreements, notification of the fact of transfer and takeover of claims, and contract for asset sale;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry, text of judgment, and search and inspection-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes, provided that the sentencing guidelines do not apply inasmuch as the reasons for sentencing under Article 39(1) are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

The victim’s damage has not been recovered, the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime; the instant crime is against the Defendant, as stated in the first head of the crime, in the relationship between the crime for which judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should take into account the amount of damage and the circumstances of the instant case.