Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any income but did not have any intent or ability to repay the purchase fund even if the Defendant obtained a loan from the Hyundai Capital of the victim due to economic circumstances that make it difficult to recover the purchase fund due to the credit card refund.

Nevertheless, on November 27, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 21 million from the injured party on a condition of installment repayment in 36 months, which is insufficient to purchase the amount equivalent to KRW 24.8 million at a point located in Seongdong-gu Seoul on November 27, 2014, and obtained from the injured party a loan of KRW 21,00,000,000 from the company loan staff member in charge of the above company as if the loan would be repaid in a normal installment, and the Defendant formed an agreement on installment loan with Dong-gu and obtained a loan of KRW 21,00,000 from the injured party for the purpose of the loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigative reports (NICE Evaluation Information Company’s Search Warrant replys), and replies of credit information results;

1. A complaint, details of loan applications, list of claims, details of deposits, terms and conditions of loans, and the register of automobile registration (A);

1. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the Defendant purchased a vehicle with a loan of KRW 21 million from the damaged person on November 29, 2014, and sold the vehicle to a third party only in 3 weeks and completed the ownership transfer registration after selling the vehicle. The Defendant was unable to receive wages from September 2014, and the Defendant was liable for a large amount of credit card liability and guarantee liability. At the time, the Defendant was holding the claim for the division of the property amounting to KRW 45 million against E, and the Defendant was holding the claim for the division of the property amounting to KRW 50 million against F.

One of the arguments is that the claim against E is not easily recoverable, and the claim against F is proved to be in existence.