1. On January 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a written purchase agreement with the victim company to pay 502,220 won in installments each month to the victim company for 36 months by paying 12 million won to the seller of the passenger vehicle through the victim company’s employees under the name and influenite employee of the department of smart department, which is the business suspension of the victim company’s EF Savings Bank (hereinafter “the victim company”); and (b) the Defendant purchased the said vehicle by purchasing the said vehicle through the victim company with the intent to pay 36 months in installments of the above payment.

However, in fact, under the circumstances where the Defendant, at the time, was liable for monthly income of approximately KRW 1 million without any particular property, but the Defendant did not have the ability to properly pay the agreed amount with the victim company due to the absence of any remaining money in the event that the Defendant paid the monthly income of KRW 10 million, but the Defendant did not have the intent to pay the installments properly. As above, even if the Defendant purchased the said vehicle at a premium rate, it was a plan to provide it as security to the bond company and to lend the funds to the bond company, and there was no intent

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the above-mentioned employees and let the victim company pay the above vehicle price of KRW 12 million on behalf of the victim company, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount of money.

2. The Defendant: (a) concluded a second installment contract at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1); and (b) set up a mortgage on the claim value of the said passenger car to the victim company on the ground that the value of the claim was 12 million won.

In this regard, on February 2013, the Defendant offered the above vehicle as security by borrowing KRW 3 million from a name-free bond business operator who became aware of through the Internet at a fluence point (hereinafter referred to as the “VA”), which was 3 million won or less from the fluence point of view.

As above, the Defendant concealed the foregoing vehicle owned by the Defendant, which was the object of the victim company’s rights, and obstructed the victim’s exercise of rights.

(i) the evidence;