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.

1. On March 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased a vehicle under the Defendant’s name by obtaining a vehicle from a military unit; (b) purchased the vehicle; and (c) sold it; and (c) recruited to “work loan” to collect funds.

In fact, the Defendant was unable to repay the loan to the extent that it would prevent the return of the loan due to a large amount of loan, and the purchased car was intended to immediately transfer the loan to a person who was not his name (hereinafter “D”). Therefore, even if the vehicle was to leave the military unit, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan.

Nevertheless, on March 2014, the Defendant, as instructed by C, prepared a contract for the part-time loan of a motor vehicle in the name of the Defendant, and submitted it to a member of the business in the name of the exhibition center in the astronomical of the astronomical Department of Franchising Co., Ltd. and received KRW 23,100,000 as the part-time loan of a motor vehicle around March 20, 2014 from G to the Agricultural Cooperative (H) account.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with C, by deceiving the victim, received 23,100,000 won from the injured party under the pretext of the installment loan on the vehicle.

2. On March 25, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the exercise of rights, at the location of the business office located in the Nam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, 649-3 Polsung-dong, by using the money borrowed as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1, and created a mortgage of KRW 23,100,000 with respect to the above Pol-dong as a mortgagee, one of the bond holders, and 23,100,000 with respect to the above Pol-dong as security for the above loan.

Nevertheless, on March 25, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred the said car that became the object of the right to collateral security at the place of business of the said Franchising car.

Accordingly, the defendant, who was the object of the victim's right, concealed the above vehicle owned by the defendant, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of right.

(i) the evidence;