2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,90,000 from Non-us Capital Co., Ltd., the Defendant created a mortgage on the Defendant’s own Cbea cruise car with a claim value of KRW 30,90,000.

Nevertheless, around August 30, 2016, the Defendant transferred the said automobile to F in order to repay F’s debt from “E” located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed his own property, which is the object of the victim's right, and obstructed the victim's exercise of right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. G statements;

3. A complaint;

4. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes to applications for motor vehicle financial instruments and copies of the motor vehicle registration ledger;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 323 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

2. Grounds for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are to be confined in a workhouse.

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 7 million won; and

2. The sentencing criteria are not set with respect to the decision of fine for sentencing.

In this case, the defendant purchased a vehicle with an installment loan, set up a collateral on the victim company as a security, and disposes of the vehicle to another person, thereby obstructing the exercise of the right to collateral by the victim company, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good.

The amount of the loan that the defendant has borne against the victim company exceeds 22 million won on the basis of the around January 2017, the actual damage amount of the victim company is also reasonable.

In light of these points, the responsibility of the defendant can not be somewhat applied to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the wrong facts, the defendant appeared to have repaid the loan normally until January 2017, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim after the death of the victim, and the fact that there is no other history of criminal punishment except for a fine imposed on one occasion as a violation of the Road Traffic Act.