beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On November 24, 2015, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) purchased 44,800,000 high-end vehicles of the Cenz at the automobile brokerage office of the non-Korean Capital Companies; (b) provided the victim company with a loan of KRW 41,00,000 to the vehicle purchase price for KRW 48 months; and (c) provided the victim company with a mid-term application for the payment of KRW 1,097,893 each month for each share of KRW 48 months; and (d) made a false statement as if the Defendant would normally repay the above loan.
However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed the above loan in the name of D because it is not good at the time, and it was thought that the Defendant would purchase used cars and receive the loan again as a collateral. At the time, the Defendant was paid approximately KRW 2,000,000 monthly pension income, but out of which 1,50,000 was spent monthly as the Defendant’s residential monthly rent expense, and there was no other property, so there was no intention or ability to pay the above loan to the victim company.
Defendant deceiving the victim company as above and caused the damaged company to pay KRW 41,00,000 out of the purchase price of the above gents used vehicle in Egs used in Egs used in Egs used in Egs used in Egs to obtain economic benefits equivalent to that amount.
2. Determination
A. The loan of this case is E in the name of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion that the defendant obtained the loan of this case, and the defendant conducts the business with E and conducts the business with E last and is jointly and severally guaranteed as partners with the knowledge of the above loan.
B. As evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, F’s statement at the investigative agency and this court; D’s statement at the investigative agency; Defendant’s prosecutor’s office at the prosecutor’s office; and Defendant said the victim company as the borrower of the instant vehicle after the fact that he/she provided joint and several guarantee for the instant loan obligations.
However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is admitted as follows.