A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 2016, the Defendant intended to obtain a loan on the grounds that the credit card price was overdue, but it was impossible to do so, the Defendant introduced B, which plays a role as a hub for loans related to the second and second vehicles, and purchased the second and second vehicles from the lending company through B, which was financed by a higher amount than the vehicle price, and conspired to use the difference.

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant decided to purchase and operate the Eran-type Eran-type 2012 from D located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was connected by the above B, and applied for a loan to the victim FF corporation as if the loan would be repaid in installments in normal terms, and the Defendant applied for a loan from the victim to the victim F corporation and received 2,560,000 won (the loan period of 48 months, the loan interest rate of 17,44%, the monthly payment rate of 20,000 won, the monthly payment rate of 743,97 won, the overdue interest rate of 27.90%, the interest rate of arrears rate of 27.90%, and the Defendant issued the above vehicle to the B immediately after the receipt of the above vehicle from the Sin-dong, Jindo-dong.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning B;

1. G statements;

1. Automobile register;

1. Application for a loan, certificate of vehicle takeover, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act have not been agreed with the victim, and the fact that the defendant has a criminal record of the same kind of punishment is disadvantageous to the defendant. Meanwhile, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime, part of the damage amount caused by the crime of this case has been reverted to the defendant, and the above criminal record has been attributed to the defendant in 202 shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and all other punishments shown in the records of this case.