A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On January 19, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months for embezzlement at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court for the crime of embezzlement, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 27, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 3, 2017, the Defendant made a false call to the victim Z in the vehicle factory located in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and concluded that “The conditions of purchase are 35 million won a vehicle that has an accident, and the amount of fine is 35 million won a week, he/she will complete the repair of the AA UA ASEAN6 vehicle and transfer it to its name.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repair and transfer the vehicle even if he received the money from the victim, because the Defendant planned to use the other vehicle as the repair cost.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the single bank account in the name of the Defendant on March 10, 2017 under the name of the vehicle price and repair expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Z;

1. Each photograph, details of deposits, and register of automobiles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to evidential materials;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act handling concurrent crimes

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① KRW 5 million out of the KRW 30 million received from the victim (hereinafter “the instant money”) is not the name of the price and the repair cost of the instant vehicle for the ASEAN6 vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”). Since the Defendant was duly paid part of the purchase price of the BMW U.S. vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) sold to the victim before that, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant acquired it by deception.

B. The assertion ② The Defendant’s remaining 25 million won out of the remainder of the Defendant received from the victim is the transfer price of the instant vehicle.