Defendant 2 is punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,00 for each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 619] 1 and 2 in [Attachment 619].

Punishment of the crime

On March 24, 2014, the Defendant stated that “E” at the main point of “E” operated by the victim D in Magpo-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Mapo-si, Changwon-si, Seoul, the Defendant would purchase a vehicle in the name of width and bear all expenses, such as the transfer of the vehicle, the installment, the insurance money, etc., and give KRW 200,000 per month in return.”

However, even if the defendant received a vehicle from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the installment in full, and there was no intention or ability to pay 2 million won per month.

On March 31, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained a FW M3 car in an amount equivalent to the market price of KRW 47 million purchased by the victim at his/her own discount from the victim; and (c) obtained the delivery of the FW M3 car in an amount equivalent to KRW 39 million at the market price purchased by the victim at his/her own discount from the victim on March 31, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract with the victim H to exchange the BMW car owned by the Defendant with the victim at the convenience store located in Sacheon-si, 2014, and concluded a contract with the victim for the exchange of the BMW car owned by the Defendant and the victim-owned A.5 car. On June 28, 2014, on June 28, 2014, the next day, there is a person who wishes to purchase the victim’s own A.5 car. As the Defendant sold the vehicle at the convenience store located in Sacheon-si, 2014, the Defendant said that “AM car will be made after the termination of the right to collateral security established in the BM car owned by the Defendant with the money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was thought to use the money sold by the Defendant to repay the Defendant’s debt, and the said BMW car owned by the Defendant was provided as security to the credit service provider on the 27th of the same month prior to the day, and even if the Defendant was granted a Do A5 car owned by the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to reduce the DoW car owned by the Defendant to the victim.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the victim to do so on June 2014.