A Imprisonment for 6 months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

[Criminal Power] On September 18, 2014, Defendant A was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at Suwon District Court on September 8, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 8, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

B is the representative director of D, and the defendant A is the person who actually operates the above company.

Defendant

B Around April 16, 2014, when purchasing an Aridi 7 car under the name of the said company, the victim was given a loan of 53,502,750 won out of the purchase price from the social service Korea (the State) that was haloged by haloga and repaid 958,612 won monthly installment for 36 months, but the victim was given a collateral security interest of 53,502,750 won to the victim company as security, and the victim company can voluntarily sell the said car after being delivered by the defendant due to the loss of due interest if the defendant was in arrears of installment payment.

The agreement was concluded to the effect that “.....”

In accordance with the above agreement, even though the establishment of mortgage on the victim company was registered on April 17, 2014 on the same day as the registration of ownership in the name of D on April 17, 2014 for the said car, the Defendants were willing to provide the said car to another person as security for transfer and to receive the loan, due to the difficult circumstances of the company around February 2015.

Although Defendants paid only 13,631,081 won in total on 14 occasions from April 16, 2014 to June 2015, Defendant A instructed Defendant B to obtain a loan as collateral from Defendant B around February 2015, Defendant B provided the said car as collateral for the said loan obligation at a place where it is impossible to know that Seoul is not more than Gangnam-gu Seoul at that time, and Defendant B provided the said car as collateral for the said loan obligation.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal their own property which is the object of the victim's right to collateral security, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of right to collateral security.