Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased a franchise vehicle and made it impossible to provide a loan because personal credit rating is not good while purchasing it; (b) submitted a business registration certificate of “C” which was actually closed in around 2009 as the Defendant had the ability to repay due to the actual operation of the workplace; (c) stated “C” and “D” in the name of the workplace of the applicant for a rent-to-rent-to-face loan, and written “1.5 million won in the loan agreement, 15.7% of the loan interest rate for the 36-month loan period, 525,136 won in the monthly payment, and the principal and interest payment.”

As a result, the Defendant deceiving the victim KF Capital Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Korea Social Co., Ltd.) and received 1.5 million won from the victim as a loan around February 6, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Entry in a complaint;

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes stated in an application for the second and second installments, the second and second installments installments, the register of automobiles, the installment payment, the business registration certificate, and the request for investigation cooperation, respectively;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant first six months paid the principal and interest for total amount of 3,312,964 won (including delay damages). The franchise vehicle has a possibility of partial recovery from damage since the mortgage of 7,50,000 won is established, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine since around 2002 and has no record of being sentenced to criminal punishment after being sentenced to a fine, and is contrary to the defendant's age, character, character, and environment, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as age