A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 19, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Suwon, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Gwangju prison on September 29, 2014, and on November 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud in the support of Suwonwon, which was decided on November 25, 2016.

When operating the FF Co., Ltd. in Si interesting, the Defendant intended to register the victim G as a director of the said company, and to purchase and dispose of vehicles by lending the victim’s name while operating the said company.

1. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant prepared a loan agreement in the name of the victim H to receive KRW 85 million from the victim’s office from the said F office, and purchased I 22.5 tons of truck.

While the defendant kept the above car truck on behalf of the victim, he was requested by the victim who did not pay the installment, to return the car truck, but rejected it and arbitrarily disposed of it, and embezzled it.

2. On March 9, 2015, the defrauded concluded a car lease contract with the victim with the term of contract of 4 years, monthly rent of 1,079,000 won in the name of the victim from the said F Office’s business entity from the said F Office (hereinafter “F Office”) and said, “the victim would return the vehicle if the rental fee is not paid in advance and the rental fee is not paid.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the rental fee or return the vehicle to the victim.

The written indictment is added to the following circumstances: “The vehicle price of KRW 20 million has already been collected from L and consumed by debt repayment, etc., and the lease of the said vehicle was intended to deliver it to L immediately.”

According to the evidence (such as the police's statement protocol, etc. on L), it is highly likely that such a situation is true.

L, however, was adopted as a witness at the trial of this case, but its whereabouts became unknown.