A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant borrowed KRW 280 million from E on September 21, 201 to provide as security the seven main machines operated by the Defendant at the above company while operating the main company called “D” located in Pakistan-si. To this end, the Defendant prepared a sale contract with the content that the Defendant sells the said machines to E and the lease contract with the content that the Defendant leases the said machines from E, and continued to possess and use the said machines.

On the other hand, the defendant provided E with the right of collection of the strike arising during work in lieu of the payment of interest on the money borrowed from E as above.

Since then, the Defendant experienced financial difficulties for the operation of the above company, the Defendant disposed of the above machinery with the equipment possessed and used by the Defendant, thereby raising money.

On August 2, 2012, the defendant has the authority to take the disposition by accepting the waiver of security right from E in the number of the law firm - Dong-dong and Dong-dong notary public of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City to the victim F, and the defendant has the authority to take the disposition by accepting

In short, if the above machinery is purchased in KRW 200 million, the defendant would rent and use the machinery again, and give the victim the right of collection in lieu of the rent.

was made.

However, in fact, since the defendant had already provided the above machinery as security, the defendant did not have the authority to dispose of the above machinery. However, the right to collect 100 million won out of the money borrowed to E is returned in lieu of the first repayment, and the remaining borrowed money will be paid with interest every month.

The consent to the waiver of the right to remove the machinery was obtained at the request, and there was no consent to the disposition of the machinery.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby deceiving the victim, on August 22, 2012, as the sales price of the said machinery from the victim (the indictment is written on August 22, 2015).