When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On April 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased C's franchise from the used cars in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju and concluded a "agreement on installment financing and loan" with the victim’s loan of KRW 19 million from the LG300,000, to repay the loan by means of equal installments for 48 months in total; and (b) around April 28, 2015, established a mortgage on the above vehicle as one capital stock company and the bond amount of KRW 9.5 million.

On October 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 5 million from F from the office of Gwangju Northern-gu D and the office of the second floor E around 2016; (b) prepared a “written waiver of the instant vehicle,” stating that “if five million won is not satisfied, the Defendant renounces the right of the instant vehicle and delivers it to another person without any condition; and (c) caused the said vehicle to be purchased, and subsequently, the said vehicle was disposed of to a third party on account of having failed to repay the said five million won amount.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the above vehicle which is the object of the victim company's rights, and obstructed the exercise of rights of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A supplementary statement to criminal complaints;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a loan agreement, letter of waiver of a motor vehicle registration certificate, copy of the motor vehicle registration ledger, copy of the original register of the motor vehicle registration, deposit statement, and application for middle

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 323 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Taking into account the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act reflects his mistake for the reason of sentencing, there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime, the amount of damage of this case is not so significant, and the agreement with the victim