A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

【2015 order 2898】

1. On April 2015, the Defendant against C made a false statement to the “E cafeteria” operated by the victim C, which was held in D at the end of the end of the middle month of the month, stating that “A Defendant would have the victim purchase a high-priced vehicle in his modern market and 5 million won under the pretext of a down payment, and that the Defendant already received a delivery from the injured party, the Defendant would have the victim purchase a high-quality high-priced car at the ex-factory price of the high-priced vehicle in his own bid if it would be more than 1.5 million won.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to purchase a high-quality high-priced motor vehicle even if he receives a high-priced motor vehicle price from the injured party, and when the above-mentioned low-priced motor vehicle is shipped out, the defendant was planned to dispose of it to the third party and pay the defendant's personal obligation with the price.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim settle 29,527,000 won under the pretext of the balance of the said low-pollution vehicle, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the said amount.

【2016 order 208】

2. Fraudulents and occupational embezzlements to victims F;

A. The Defendant, at H located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 2014, 201, intends to sell the victim F to the victim at least three (3) days after the victim F purchased the first low-priced typ vehicle purchased through the previous Defendant. The Defendant would sell the vehicle without deeming the above vehicle as damages and purchase another vehicle.

It is intended to sell and provide a vehicle within the country.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant thought that the vehicle was transferred to another person immediately after receiving the vehicle from the damaged person, so even if being transferred to the damaged person, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to sell the vehicle and return the vehicle price.

Ultimately, the Defendant made a false statement as above, and acquired the above low-priced vehicle from the injured party on August 25, 2015, which is equivalent to KRW 28 million at the market price.

B. The Defendant’s occupational embezzlement is an automobile trading business from around 2003 to around 2015.