On February 10, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 14,50,000 from the victim to the Solomon Savings Bank on the condition that the above vehicle is provided as security to the victim, and on February 14, 2011, set up a mortgage over KRW 14,50,000,000 as the mortgagee at the bond price at the office of the (ju) New Automobile Sales Complex located in Pyeongtaek-dong 57-1, Dong-dong, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Nevertheless, around August 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from the office of a sub-loan company in the name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the sub-party credit service provider, and offered the said car as a security, thereby making the location unknown, thereby hindering the victim from exercising his rights by concealing his own property, which became the object of the victim's rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to C and D;

1. The register of motor vehicles (A, B);

1. Details of ordinary loans, details of overdue demand, contracts for debt collection delegation, comprehensive management in arrears, and details of delivery by mail;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as an application for loans of installment financing and a copy of the written agreement, etc. of automobile registration certificate, resident registration abstract, credit information, etc. and details of interest collection;

1. The pertinent provision of the criminal facts, Article 323 of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the reasons for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of recommending punishment] Obstruction of Exercise of Right and Obstruction of Right: 6-1 year [the decision of sentence] from June to June 1, 201, when the defendant currently serves as hotel manager, there is no amount of payment of four installments from February 10 to June 10, 201, and there is no amount of payment of four installments from June 10 to June 10, 201, and the defendant did not find that the victim's employee was at home or at work without telephone even though he attempted telephone.