However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On July 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two months at the Changwon District Court for fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016.

The Defendant is the owner of CMW760Li vehicle, and the Defendant, by telephone at the window of Changwon-si on November 18, 2014, paid off the principal and interest in equal installments for 36 months each month by KRW 978,217 per month on condition of establishing 50% mortgage on the above vehicle, and is prohibited from disposing of the said vehicle, such as transfer, lease, pledge, and establishment of mortgage, without the consent of the victim until the loan is paid in full.

“Agreement with the content that “the victim shall be 26,00,000 won as a loan from the injured party,” and on November 24, 2014, the victim made a mortgage on the above vehicle amounting to KRW 13,000,000 with respect to the claim amounting to the victim.

On April 2015, the defendant requested E to dispose of the above vehicle without the consent of the victim and delivered it to E.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the goods of the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, and interfered with the victim's exercise of right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Copies of loan documents for customers;

1. An abstract, such as the motor vehicle registration ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Binding reports including judicial sentences);

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 323 of the choice of punishment;

1. Subsequent to Article 37 of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes: Provided, That the proviso to Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below) lies in the Defendant’s depth and reflects his mistake, and there are some circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant did not agree with the victim until now is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the case where the defendant has already become final and conclusive and this case is also filed.