A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that 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 March 28, 2012, the Defendant purchased Grand Vehicles in Ireland at the Hyundai Motor Agent Agency in 967, Gosidong-dong, 10 million won, and entered into a loan agreement with the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. to KRW 25 million out of the purchase price of the vehicles.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already received KRW 15 million from Bracker C, delivered a new vehicle under the name of the Defendant, and agreed to dispose of it immediately and receive the fee, and there was no intention to pay it normally even if he received a loan from the victim.

The Defendant received from the victim the amount of KRW 10 million for the purpose of the loan, namely, from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the application form, claim list, and register of automobiles of modern capital;

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

1. In light of the fact that the defendant, for the reason of sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence, obtained a considerable amount of money of KRW 10 million from the victim by borrowing money from the victim by pretending to lend a loan contract, the defendant shall be subject to strict punishment.

However, the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected, the Defendant has been punished five times a fine, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime despite having been sentenced to punishment for the same offense. The Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year at the first instance court with respect to the crime of this case and the crime of fraud in the relationship of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1309). The Defendant reimburses the victim company and the victim company for the amount of damage of this case by the end of July 2014 after the Defendant completed a prison life due to the above sentence.