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 2012, the Defendant applied for a loan on a vehicle with two false names, and received a false loan, and attempted to sell the vehicle at other places.

On October 15, 2012, the Defendant loaned KRW 37,300,000, out of KRW 37,480,000, to the employees of Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., a Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., Ltd., working in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, to pay KRW 767,06 each 15th day of each month from October 15, 2012 to October 15, 2017.

In fact, the defendant did not intend to purchase the vehicle and did not have the ability to pay the vehicle even if he purchased the vehicle in order to raise the money rapidly required at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the said employee receive the application for the installment loan of Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Modern Capital Co., Ltd., thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 37,300,000 from the victim as a vehicle loan.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collaboration with two or more persons who have not been killed in the name of the victim, deceiving the employees of the victim, thereby acquiring the above amount of property benefits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A complaint;

1. Application for a loan, terms and conditions of loan, examination table, certificate of personal seal impression, details of deposit, details of request, and application of the register of automobiles;

1. Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Although Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was not compensated for damage on the grounds of sentencing, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects his mistake, the defendant did not have the same criminal record, and the profits acquired by the defendant through the crime of this case are relatively large.