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 October 22, 2009, the Defendant, at the branch office of the Plaintiff’s Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the name of the Defendant, obtained a loan of KRW 24 million in total from the injured party in the name of the Defendant, and received a transfer registration under the name of the Defendant and received a separate mortgage in the name of the injured party on the same day.

On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 4 million from a person who was in the name of the deceased; (b) agreed to provide the said vehicle as security; (c) drafted a letter of renunciation of the vehicle; and (d) failed to repay the loan at the maturity of payment on August 2012, the Defendant handed over the damaged vehicle to the person who was in the name of the deceased and disabled as a repayment for the said vehicle; and (b) made it impossible for the victim to exercise the mortgage right on the said passenger vehicle by allowing the said person to not grasp the location of the said passenger vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the objects of the victim's rights, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaint;

1. Application for loans for purchasing motor vehicles, and application of the statutes of the Motor Vehicle Registration Register;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the types of decisions] that interfere with the exercise of rights, etc. and the exercise of rights, etc.] and there is no person who is in need of special sentencing [the scope of the recommended punishment] from June to one year (the basic area];

2. Although the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 24 million to the vehicle purchase fund, the crime of this case is not good in terms of transferring the instant vehicle to another person even though it was mortgaged at the bond price, and considering the circumstances where the overdue loan doctrine is more than the bond price of the mortgage and the damage has not been recovered, the Defendant shall be deemed to have taken into account.