Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is a person engaged in the used car trading business, and Defendant B was awarded a bid for FMW X6 car by auction and owned it.

around November 25, 2010, the Defendants sold the said BMF car to the victim I at the “H” store located in Seoul, and the facts are as follows: (a) despite the fact that the said car was flooded and disposed of by flood around September 21, 2010, Defendant B advertised the said vehicle as an accident-free vehicle at the “J” site; (b) the Defendants did not notify the said vehicle of the fact that the said vehicle is “dicking vehicle and BM A/S engine failure vehicle,” and did not notify the victim of the fact that the said vehicle was “dicking vehicle, which is without accident, and the vehicle repair may be done normally; and (c) on the same day, the Defendants prepared a contract to sell the said vehicle at the “L” store 223, Nam-gu, Incheon, Seoul, and received KRW 82 million from the victim as the purchase price.

As a result, the defendants conspired to acquire the property of the victim.

2. Defendants’ assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that they did not deceiving the victim I and denied the charges.

B. (1) First of all, as to Defendant B’s advertisement as a non-accidentd vehicle to the “J” site and deceiving the victim, according to the investigation report (BMWX6 advertisement attachment), Defendant B is recognized as having posted an advertisement for FMW X6 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). However, according to the I’s statement in the fourth protocol of the trial, the victim stated that the above J advertisement was not proper and is advertised to J, and that the victim did not purchase the vehicle. Thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant B had deceiving the victim by advertising the instant vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Sheshes as follows: