The case affirming the judgment of the court below which ruled that the defendant's act of deceiving the victim and making the victim enter into an insurance contract for installment sales guarantee for vehicles with joint and several sureties shall be punished for

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's act of acquiring financial benefits equivalent to the remainder of the purchase price of the vehicle, excluding the advance payment, is a criminal fraud, by purchasing 2 sets of grass truck and 4 car truck with the victim as a joint guarantor and having the victim prepare a promissory deed for joint and several sureties, on the ground that the victim's act of purchasing 2 sets of automobile and 4 car truck with the victim as a joint guarantor and obtaining a certificate for the joint and several sureties of the installment sales contract by making the victim not eligible for the joint and several sureties of the installment sales contract, and then obtaining a certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate for the certificate of the joint and several sureties for 1 car truck and 4 car truck from the victim's sales office, is committed as a criminal fraud.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2217 delivered on October 26, 1982 (Gong1983,127) 82Do255 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983,620) 84Do984 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Gong1986,69)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 93No1170 delivered on June 24, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant, who operated the non-indicted corporation based on the evidence established at the non-indicted 1 corporation, purchased 10t truck 2 years old and 5t truck from Hyundai Motor Vehicle Sales Business Office to have been released, and did not find any person who would guarantee the above 10th truck even though he received demands from the employees of the above business office on several occasions because he did not have a joint guarantor of the above 10th truck, the court below found the above 10th truck as a joint guarantor and did not pay 15 million won for the above 15th truck to the victim's disease, and found that the above non-indicted 2 corporation had a joint guarantor of the above non-indicted 1 corporation receive the above 10th truck with the above 10th truck with the above 10th truck with the above 10th truck with the new 10th truck with the new 5th truck with the above 10th truck with the new 1st truck with the above 1st truck with the above 3th truck's seal impression.

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

In this case where a sentence of two-year imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year, the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal. This is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)