A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a used vehicle sales business in the name of “D used vehicle sales business”, and E is a person who is working as a sear for the trading company of the above vehicle, and the victim C is a person who is working as a sear for the above trading company, along with E.

The Defendant, around April 2014, at the above trading company, was entrusted to and managed by the victim C with the vehicle from the victim C in the above trading company, and the Defendant asked E to provide one motor vehicle for the mother-fabage and one Vietnam cruise vehicle as collateral and to obtain a loan. Of the loans, some of the loans shall be given top and the remainder shall be repaid in full, and all of the following shall be repaid:

“A false statement” was made.

However, in the process of constructing studio in the old U.S. F, the Defendant was unable to prepare the remainder of the construction cost under the circumstances where the loans were given to 160 million won in the financial right. Since the Defendant was in a state of debt exceeding the obligation to pay more than the owned property, there was no intention or ability to pay the loan even if having offered the vehicle as security and borrowed the money.

Nevertheless, on May 7, 2014, the Defendant, by deceiving E as such, offered one vehicle of 24.5 million won or more at the market price of the victim’s own possession as a collateral for the Abdog Capital (a week), received a loan of 18.5 million won or more, and received a delivery of 8.5 million won or more among them. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant received a loan of 18 million won or more from the same company as a collateral for the victim’s own market price of 25 million won or more, and received a loan of 18 million won or more among them.

As a result, the defendant deceiving E, obtained the value of security equivalent to 15 million won in total from the victim's vehicle from E, and acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. The status of the property at the time of the crime, the relationship between the debt and the loan of the ruling, among the prosecutor's office and the police interrogation protocol against the defendant's partial statement of the defendant (the purport that the criminal intent of deception is denied, but the factual fact is recognized) and the witness C and E's respective legal statements