The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, at the end of August 2008, made a false statement in the facts charged of the instant case that “The Defendant, while visiting the victim C who was confined to the said prison at the time at the time in the Sinpo-gun, Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul-do, the Sinpo-gun, stating that “I will solve all fines for negligence and give KRW 300,000 won.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to scrap the vehicle owned by the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained contact information of E, which was in custody of one ton cargo vehicle owned by the victim from the victim, and then acquired one ton of the cargo vehicle owned by the victim in the market by receiving the above cargo vehicle from E.

2. The gist of the defendant's lawsuit is only that the defendant, upon the request of C, has taken the vehicle from E that has been in custody of one ton of the cargo vehicles owned C and has not taken it over to F, a scrapped business operator, and it is not true that the above cargo vehicle was stolen.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the judgment: (i) around August 18, 2008, the defendant transferred the above cargo vehicle to the F accompanied by the transfer of the cargo vehicle from E (G upon request from E) and around August 18, 2008; and (ii) F, as the defendant's lawsuit, entered the above cargo vehicle into the H-vehicle to scrap the above cargo vehicle; and (iii) the defendant, like the defendant's change, judged that he received the above cargo vehicle from E in order to scrap the cargo vehicle upon request from C (only in case of C, it is difficult to understand the defendant's contact address to the purport that he knew about the cargo vehicle once); (iii) the above cargo vehicle was actually dismantled, and thus, the administrative fine, environmental contribution, etc. was imposed on C due to the failure to remove the cargo vehicle; and (iv) F did not give money to C to the vehicle that received KRW 400,000 from I; and (d) the defendant's complaint shall be deemed as C.