beta
Text
Defendant
A In six months of imprisonment, entry Nos. 1, 5, 7-A, and 9-A of the judgment of the defendant B in the attached list of crimes.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
On October 6, 2009, A was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in the Busan District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court on June 6, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2009.
Defendant
B On August 14, 2009, the Suwon District Court sentenced two years of suspended execution to six months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Suwon District Court on August 22, 2009, which became final and conclusive on August 22, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Incheon District Court was sentenced one year of suspended execution to four months of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and became final and conclusive on December 11, 2009.
Defendants
1. [209No. 5766] The Defendants: (a) purchased used cars as security; and (b) made a loan from the installment financing company to 80% of the vehicle tax at the time according to the standard table according to the type of the vehicle and the production year without confirming the condition of the relevant automobile or the actual sale price; (c) by deceiving the installment financing company as if they purchased the cars at a lower price than the loan application amount, and then by deceiving the company of installment financing to receive money as security, by purchasing the cars at a normal price.
Defendant
B around June 2008, a market price of the same kind and the same production year was formed by D, but it was requested to sell the Egyland's passenger car damaged by fire to KRW 11 million, and then the said vehicle was introduced to A.
Defendant
A, at the Korea Exchange Service Office located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-dong on June 13, 2008, the fact that the above automobile was damaged by fire and the fact that the above automobile was actually purchased at 11 million won, without notifying that the above automobile was normally used as a car with the same kind of automobile and the same production year, while the above automobile was done as if it was a car with a similar value as a car, the victim under the name of the defendant F.