[Criminal Power] On November 8, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 16, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 10, 201, the Defendant entered into an installment financing contract with the effect that the Defendant borrowed KRW 80 million from Agro to pay the purchase price of the automobile goods shop “D” in the name of the Defendant during the operation of the vehicle goods shop “D,” and that the Defendant would pay the loan amount of KRW 3,948,88,00 per month for 36 months. On February 14, 2011, the Defendant created a mortgage on the said Bents’ car for the security of the said obligation, as well as the debtor, the bond amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were to be transferred from the said Agrosian loan to the Defendant.

On July 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the G parking lot located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City F around July 17, 2012, a mortgage was established on the said passenger car for the victim company; (b) without the victim’s consent, transferred the said passenger car to the party who is the seat of the Defendant through H; and (c) received in return, KRW 17 million from the Defendant’s account.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the defendant's car which is the object of the victim's mortgage and interfered with the exercise of others' rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Criminal records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (attached to written judgments);

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 323 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act is that it was unclear whether to repay a loan by purchasing a motor vehicle that is difficult to cope with the initial reason for sentencing, and that the amount of mortgage establishment is larger, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, damage recovery is not limited to half of the said money.