Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates Drenk’s “Drenk” in Ulsan Nam-gu C.

At the time of leasing a vehicle, the Defendant requested customers who do not closely check the condition of the vehicle, to compensate for damage on the ground of the damage of the existing vehicle.

Around May 24, 2013, the Defendant, who was given a loan from the “Drenk” to the victim E, displayed the existing defects in the F Arenk-burged passenger vehicle owned by the said company, and said, “The 3.50,000 won was changed at the repair cost because the defect occurred on both sides of the preceding one.”

The defendant received 350,000 won from the damaged person on the same day as repair expenses and acquired it by fraud.

From this point to February 18, 2014, the Defendant obtained a total amount of KRW 4,530,000 through the same eight times, such as the list of offenses, and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording of each statement of G and H in the five-time public trial records;

1. Recording of E statements in the sixth public trial records;

1. Partial recording of I's statements in the sixth public trial records;

1. Recording of a statement by J in the seventh public trial records;

1. Recording of K's statements in the 10-time trial records;

1. Protocols for examination of witnesses concerning L;

1. Application of laws and subordinate statutes to police statements made to M, N,O, P, Q, R, and I (including each accompanying material);

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order provides that the defendant's act does not constitute fraud since the defendant claimed and received reasonable repair expenses from the victims against the damaged part of a siren vehicle. However, according to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant's act is different from the victims.