On December 27, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 from the damaged party E-ray purchase price through employees D, who performed the loan business of the victim C Co., Ltd. at the Jung-gu Office located in Gyeong-gu Office located in Gyeongbuk-gun B, and around January 24, 2014, the Defendant created a mortgage on the above mining season to secure the above loan obligation.

After that, the Defendant merely repaid KRW 7,747,698 out of the above loans and did not repay the remaining principal and interest amounting to KRW 99,409,772. Accordingly, even upon receipt of a request from the injured party to June 2014 to August 2014, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s exercise of rights by concealing the above excavation equipment which became the object of the victim’s rights, such as not notifying the victim of the location of the above excavation equipment for the execution of mortgage, even though the Defendant was notified of the scheduled cancellation of the loan contract and the scheduled cancellation of the mortgage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Police statements of the F;

1. Documents attached to a complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the registration of construction machinery to inquiries about each financial credit information;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 323 of the Criminal Act in relation to the relevant criminal facts and Article 323 of the choice of punishment;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. The basic area (six months to one year) (one year) of the recommended sentencing criteria shall be the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] according to the application of the sentencing criteria.

3. The defendant's age, environment, sex, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., including the fact that the defendant's sentencing decision is considerably highly valuable, despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, he/she again leads to the crime of this case despite the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, and his/her whereabouts is currently unknown.