Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants notified the buyer of the commission or charge prior to entering into the trading brokerage contract in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Automobile Management Act, and collected the commission or charge within the scope prescribed by the law, but, despite the fact that they are obliged to receive the commission or charge from the customer who was placed in the middle and high market price, they collected the difference between the middle and high market price and actually collected the difference from the middle and high market price.

On July 23, 2018, the Defendants visited the victim D to purchase a second class vehicle in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant A entered into a sales contract with the victim after preparing documents related to the sale, such as the vehicle registration certificate, etc. of the above vehicle, with the purport that “The victim would sell the E food vehicle at a low price that is absolutely less than able to live in other places, and would allow the purchase of the 16.6 million won including expenses for the transfer registration, etc.” and Defendant B entered into a sales contract with the victim after preparing documents related to the above vehicle registration certificate, etc.

However, in fact, the above vehicle is an article which is set up in the sale price of KRW 6.9 million in the monthly automobile trading company, and the Defendants thought that the Defendants were to have divided the remaining KRW 8.72 million after deducting the above sale price and transfer cost, etc. from KRW 16.6 million received from the injured party, and the Defendants did not notify the injured party of the commission or charge to be acquired through the above sales mediation.

In collusion, the Defendants received 16.6 million won from the victim to the Kaka Bank account in the name of the Defendant B for the same day as the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim, and acquired the pecuniary profit equivalent to KRW 8.72 million, which is the difference between the sale price and transfer cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The accused.