beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,200,00, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Power] On May 22, 2019, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years at the Incheon District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the judgment was finalized on May 30, 2019.
【Criminal Facts】
1. The Defendants’ co-principald Defendant A enticed the customers through a “unclaimed sheet” term, which is a remarkably lower price than the actual vehicle purchase price, and allocated the customers who reported and found it to Defendant B. Defendant B recommended the purchase of vehicles other than the mos, and notified the customers of the amount less than the actual vehicle purchase price as the vehicle purchase price. Defendant B conspired to obtain the difference under the name of brokerage commission, without receiving or receiving the brokerage commission, by notifying the customers of the amount less than the actual vehicle purchase price.
Accordingly, around April 2018, Defendant A posted an advertisement with the content that Defendant A sold 6.8 million won of DNA 2000,000 NA in October 2009 to C, which is a medium and high-speed sales site of the Internet, and distributed the victim E who reported and contacted such advertisement to Defendant B.
In addition, on April 12, 2018, Defendant B displayed the above NAS Scoo vehicle to the victim in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F, and the above vehicle stated that the vehicle is a vehicle exchanged 2 times the engine and caused the victim to waive the purchase of the above NAS coo vehicle, and then moved to Incheon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, the victim showed the vehicle for the 2007 HH G35S vehicle, and the victim made a false statement to the effect that “the price is 8.5 million won, including the cost, and the brokerage fee will not be collected.”
However, in fact, the above G35S vehicle was merely 5,100,000 won including the expenses and 8,500,000 won for the vehicle price proposed by the Defendants and 3,40,000 won, which is the difference between the actual price and 5,100,000 won.
As above, the Defendants deceiving the victim and belong to it.