beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In light of G, I’s statements at the investigative agency and court, N’s statements, etc., it is recognized that the Defendant was aware that the odometer was replaced at the time of selling the instant vehicle to the victim, but did not notify the victim thereof. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was acquitted, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
A. On January 15, 2013, at around 13:00, the Defendant: (a) sold a FK7 car, a used vehicle, to the victim E in Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu; (b) while indicating that the odometer is more than 29,096km than the distance indicated in the odometer, the Defendant: (c) knew of the fact that the odometer indicated in the odometer is less than the actual odometer, but (d) knew of the fact that the odometer is less than the distance indicated in the odometer, the Defendant deceiving the victim as if the odometer was the actual odometer; and (c) obtained the odometer from the victim as the sale proceeds of the said vehicle, and acquired it by the defrauded after receiving KRW 20,50,000,000 from the victim.
B. The lower court determined that the lower court determined that it is difficult to believe that: (a) the partial statement of L and M is a re-specialized statement containing N’s statement containing the Defendant’s statement, and that the N’s statement in N’s court and investigative agency is inadmissible as evidence; (b) the Defendant’s statement in N’s court and investigative agency is not consistent with the point of time when the Defendant became aware of the odometer replacement; and (c) the statement in the I and G’s court and investigative agency asked the service center for the replacement of odometer immediately after having received the phone call from the victim, and immediately asked the Defendant to inform the Defendant of the above replacement and the victim’s claim; and (d) H solicited him to agree with the victim.