Defendant 1 and two others

Freeboard of transfer, strong fisheries, literature and stone (public prosecution), yellow dong (public trial)

Attorney Seo Jae-in et al.

1. Defendant 1

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant is not guilty of violating the Automobile Management Act.

2. Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The defendant is not guilty of violating the Automobile Management Act.

3. Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

To order the defendant to provide community service for 200 hours.

The defendant is not guilty of violating the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users.

" 2011 Highest 1604"

On June 10, 201, Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in 1 year and six months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 8, 201.

1. Joint-crimes committed by Defendants 1 and 2 (Defendant 1);

When Defendant 1 recruited victims to provide the name of the buyer of a motor vehicle and moved to Nonindicted Co. 7 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 7”) located in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) operated by Defendant 2, Defendant 1 entered into a contract for the purchase of the vehicle imported from the part of the vehicle to the part of the victim through the grasium, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) conspired to divide the above motor vehicle by receiving the money from Defendant 3 (party 2: Defendant 2) who is a specialized car lending business operator, by transferring the vehicle to the third party (party 2).

Defendant 1 at the office of the above non-indicted 7 on April 27, 2010, the defendant 1 told the victim non-indicted 6 that "it is intended to take over the vehicle in the name of the victim without any intention or ability to take over the vehicle as the trading company" even though he did not have an intention or ability to pay the installment or take over the vehicle as the trading company, and take over the vehicle as the trading company after three months after the settlement of the vehicle in the name of the victim and then dispose of the vehicle without any intention or ability." The victim believed to have the victim purchase the 49 million won (vehicle No. 500,000,000 won) of the market price and transferred the vehicle immediately thereafter. From around that time to July 15, 2010, the defendant deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim as the sum of the damage amount of the same vehicle to "39,500,000 won", the vehicle number of No. 500,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 2.4.5 billion won).

2. Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

Notwithstanding the fact that the transferee of a registered motor vehicle intends to transfer the motor vehicle again to a third party in his/her name before the transfer, the defendant, on May 28, 2010, without registering the transfer of the motor vehicle in his/her name from the above non-indicted 7 company located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the non-indicted 1 (motor vehicle number 1 omitted) in his/her name, and without registering the transfer of the motor vehicle to the non-indicted 2 (motor vehicle number 3 omitted) in the same manner from around that time to July 15, 2010, the defendant transferred the four motor vehicle, such as the vehicle number listed in the annexed Table 2 (the vehicle number 3 omitted) in the annexed Table 2 (the vehicle number 2 omitted) in the name of the defendant, to the third party.

" 2011 Highest 2094"

1. Defendants 1 and 2 (Defendant 1);

When Defendant 1 recruited victims who will offer a name to purchase a passenger car at a premium rate, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) concluded a contract to purchase a passenger car in a premium rate in the name of the victims, and the Defendants conspired to transfer the passenger car purchased as above to a specialized borrower and to acquire the price by fraud.

Defendant 1, around June 10, 2010, at the office of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), △△△△△△△△△△△△△ Party 7, and Defendant 1, despite the victim’s non-indicted 8’s intent or ability to receive the ownership of the vehicle, purchased the vehicle with the capital loan, Defendant 1 made payment on behalf of the victim, or made payment on behalf of the victim, or did not have the intent or ability to have the ownership of the vehicle transferred. However, Defendant 1 made the victim purchase the vehicle under the victim’s name (vehicle No. 6 omitted) and made the victim purchase the vehicle, and then transferred the vehicle to Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) of the borrower, and then disposed of the vehicle with the victim’s name from around that time to November 5, 2010, by making the victim purchase three parts of the vehicle under the victim’s name, such as the attached list 4, and then did not pay the vehicle in full at least KRW 80,000.

2. Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

Where a person who acquired a registered motor vehicle intends to transfer it to a third party, he/she shall transfer the ownership transfer of the motor vehicle under his/her name to the Mayor/Do Governor prior to the transfer, but the defendant transferred (motor vehicle number 3 omitted) the motor vehicle acquired from Defendant 2 (motor vehicle number 3 omitted) at the same place as the preceding paragraph on August 18, 2010 to a person under the name of the defendant without registering the ownership transfer under the name of the defendant. On November 5, 2010, the defendant transferred the (motor vehicle number 4 omitted) motor vehicle acquired from Defendant 2 (motor vehicle number 4 omitted) under the name of the defendant and transferred it to the person under the name of the defendant, without registering the ownership transfer under the name of the defendant.

"2012 Highest 264"

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) concluded a contract with Defendant 1 to purchase a vehicle in the name of the victim who will lend the victim the name of the victim to purchase the vehicle through the capital company through the capital company (Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) through the capital company in the name of the victim, and conspired to acquire the price by transferring the vehicle purchased to the vehicle lending business operator as above.

Defendant 1, around August 30, 2010, at the office of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), △△△△△△△△△△△ 7, 301, and the fact that Defendant 1 purchased a vehicle using a car in the name of the victim Nonindicted 9, even if the vehicle was not paid in full or installments on behalf of the victim in the name of the victim, Defendant 1 was transferred to the vehicle dealer who attempted to operate the vehicle in the name of the vehicle and did not have an intention or ability to do so, Defendant 1, despite having no intention or ability to do so, shall make payments for three months if he borrowed the vehicle in the name of the party to purchase the vehicle, and if he borrowed the vehicle in the name of the trading company after three months, he would make the victim be free from damage to the party, he shall have the victim enter into a contract of purchasing the vehicle in the name of 29,900,000 won, which is a 2.97 million won, and he shall have the above 3.975 million won,00,000,00,000,0.

" 2011 Highest 1604"

1. The legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 3

1. The statements made by Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 11 in the third trial record

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects to the Defendants (including the cross-examination)

1. Investigation protocol of the police suspect against Nonindicted 5

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 3

1. Each complaint;

1. Each investigation report;

" 2011 Highest 2094"

1. The legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 12

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects to the Defendants (including the cross-examination)

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against Nonindicted 13

1. Each investigation report;

1. A motor vehicle registration certificate, a vehicle delivery certificate, a vehicle waiver note and a written consent for vehicle use, a installment performance note, a certificate of vehicle transfer, a certificate of personal seal impression, an application for loan, a motor vehicle register, a statement of payment of loans from a modern Capital, and the details of payment of loans from a

"2012 Highest 264"

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 9

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 1 by the prosecution (including the cross-examination);

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 9

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report;

1. Details of each letter, certificate of transfer of a motor vehicle, certificate of vehicle takeover, certificate of motor vehicle registration, certificate of personal seal impression, and transactions of deposits;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment (the choice of each imprisonment with prison labor);

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 3 (Defendant 2): Article 80 Subparag. 2 and Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (the defendants);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order to provide community service (Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. Defendant 1 and defense counsel's assertion

① Defendant 1 was seeking to rent vehicles purchased in the name of the victims and did not intend to borrow or transfer the rent as collateral. ② Defendant 1 was the intent and ability to pay installment payments, etc. for victims, and the vehicle dealer’s intention and ability to take over the name of the vehicle in the name of the said commercial name, and thus, Defendant 1’s fraud with respect to Defendant 1 is not established.

B. Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) and defense counsel’s assertion

(1) As to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

The instant crime of fraud is an offense committed by Defendant 1 who arbitrarily uses the loan that was provided with the vehicle in the name of the victims to the victims without delivering it to the victims ( Defendant 2 (Defendant 1). Defendant 2 (Defendant 1 did not encourage the victims to have any defect in the siren business as alleged by Defendant 1) and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) did not agree to do so. Thus, the crime of fraud against Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) is not established.

(2) As to Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2)

Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) did not transfer the instant vehicle to a third party, but did not transfer the vehicle to the third party by means of forging documents, etc. However, Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) did not constitute a crime of violating the Automobile Management Act against Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2).

2. Determination

A. As to whether fraud is established (Defendant 1, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

(1) As to Defendant 1’s assertion that the amount Defendant 1 received from Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) is the profit of the instant vehicle, it is difficult to regard the said money as the profit of the rent in light of the circumstances where the amount of the above money was considerably high, the rent was paid in advance for several months, and the rent was paid without exception for all vehicles. It is reasonable to view the said money as the transfer price of the instant vehicle or the loan secured by the said money.

In addition, with respect to illegal or legal methods such as the instant case, it is believed that Defendant 1 paid the victims' installments, etc. on behalf of the victims, or received the automobile trader and thus, it is uncertain or low that the possibility of transferring the name of the vehicle to the said commercial name is uncertain (it is doubtful that the method of preparing the acquisition price of the automobile sales company is possible in light of all the circumstances). In fact, Defendant 1 failed to properly perform the promise made to the victims except for the installment payments in the instant case. As such, Defendant 1 is considered to have failed to have the intent or ability to substitute the installment payments, etc., or to transfer the vehicle's name in the name of the said commercial name by taking over the automobile sales company, as if they were promised to the victims, and thus, Defendant 1 and the defense counsel are not accepted.

(2) As to the assertion of Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1), the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, ① the situation that the victims of the instant case did not actually intend to purchase the vehicle, but only the name was known to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1). ② Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) directly carried out all the affairs related to the loan and the conclusion of a second-hand sales contract for the loan from the capital company, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) directly carried out the affairs related to the conclusion of the second-hand sales contract for the instant crime of fraud, including taking over the said vehicles directly to Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) and paying the said vehicles to Defendant 1, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the loan and the sales contract for the instant vehicles. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) was highly likely to obtain additional economic benefits in addition to the benefit of installment commission from the capital company that he recognizes. Defendant 2 (Defendant 2: Defendant 1) did not accept the functional intent of the Defendant 1 to commit the instant crime.

(b) Whether the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act was established (Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

As to whether the act of Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2) constitutes “the case where a person who acquired a vehicle transfers it to a third party”, Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2) provided funds as security for the instant vehicle, but there is no loan certificate prepared by Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2) in paying the funds to Defendant 2 (board: Defendant 1). ② According to the investigation agency of Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2) and the statement at this court, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (board: Defendant 1) provided the funds to Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2) before the first or second of June 1, 2010: The agreement on the interest and the payment period as above was not specific, and Defendant 2 paid the funds to Defendant 3 (board: Defendant 2), and there was no doubt as to whether the funds were transferred to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2). However, in light of the fact that the agreement on the establishment and payment period of the vehicle was already paid to Defendant 2 (U: Defendant 3).

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): The Defendants’ crime of this case is an act to disrupt the sound order of automobile trade, and there is a need to strictly punish the relevant crime in that it is highly likely to cause various social harm since the crime of this case was committed in large-scale circulation, and there were various harms such as distribution of large-sized vehicles in this case.

In addition, the Defendants were sentenced to punishment in consideration of such circumstances as the recovery of the instant vehicle and the settlement of the victims' liability for installment payments.

In addition to these circumstances, the extent and nature of the Defendants’ involvement in the instant crime, the attitude of the investigative agency and this court in the criminal investigation agency, the Defendants’ criminal records, and in the case of some victims, the actual damages are less than the amount specified in the criminal facts, and in the case of Defendant 1, the Defendants agreed with some victims (On the other hand, the victims, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 8 reversed their intention of agreement on the grounds that they did not receive the agreed amount), and all other sentencing conditions specified in the argument of the instant case shall be determined as ordered in the

Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2). Although it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant in that it is highly likely to cause various social harm by distributing large vehicles, considering the number of vehicles distributed by the Defendant, economic benefits acquired by the Defendant, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, the sentence like the order shall be imposed.

1. As to the violation of the Automobile Management Act (Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1);

A. Summary of the facts charged

Although Defendant 1, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) (Defendant 1) are required to make a transfer registration in their own name before the transfer to a third party, Defendant 1, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2) recruited victims to provide the buyer’s name and concluded a contract for purchase of heavy profits from the part of import to a third party through the help of Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was operated by Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2). Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) conspired to divide the above automobiles by receiving money from Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) (Defendant 2) who is a specialized vehicle lending business operator to transfer the vehicle to a third party.

On May 28, 2010, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) transferred 4 vehicles as shown in the annexed Table 2 in the same manner from around that time to July 15, 2010 in the same manner, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) knew that the above vehicles were distributed in the same way. In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) knew that the above vehicles were distributed in the same way.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2: Defendant 2) conspired with Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and transferred the automobile to a third party without registering the transfer in the name of Defendant 3 (Defendant 2).

B. Determination

(1) Defendant 1, Defendant 2 (board: Defendant 1) and defense counsel’s assertion

There is no violation of the Automobile Management Act against the above Defendants.

(2) Determination

(A) The fact that Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) received money from Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and transferred the vehicle indicated in the facts charged. However, the evidence submitted by the above fact of recognition and the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed that Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) conspired to commit the crime of transferring the said vehicle to a third party without registering the transfer of ownership in its own name. Moreover, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) directly shared part of the elements of the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act.

(B) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users (Defendant 3 (Defendant 2).

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) did not register a credit business with the competent authority, and on June 1, 2010, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) provided (vehicle No. 1 omitted) passenger cars in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 at ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative located in Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon, and lent KRW 20 million to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) by the same method until July 15, 2010 and lent KRW 788 million in total on four occasions, as shown in attached Table 3, to the same method as indicated in attached Table 3.

B. Determination

As examined in the judgment on the establishment of a crime of violating the Automobile Management Act against Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2), it is reasonable to view that Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) paid money to Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and received the instant vehicle from Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) did not lend the instant vehicle to another person as collateral, but instead take over the instant vehicle. As such, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) is not acquitted.

3. As to fraud (Defendant 1, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

A. Summary of the facts charged

On January 1, 201 of the 201st order 1604 case, the Defendants, as described in the same method as the joint criminal records of Defendants 1 and 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 4 and 5, by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 10 through twice, as described in the table of crime Nos. 1 in the attached Form Nos. 4 and 5, in the same manner as in the same place as the joint criminal records of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1).

B. Determination

However, there is no proof of a crime regarding the part of the damage amount No. 4 of the annexed Table 1, which exceeds “30 million won,” and the damage amount No. 5 exceeds “39.5 million won,” with respect to the part in excess of the above amount, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to prove that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 (the counter-board: the defendant 1) should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the judgment on the remaining amount in relation to the crime is found guilty of each crime of fraud, the sentence of innocence shall not be separately pronounced.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Oral video