The defendant is a person who actually operates the management committee for a dispute resolution in Scheon-si D (hereinafter referred to as the "E").

On September 16, 2010, the Defendant borrowed 5.6 billion won from the Industrial Bank of Korea in the name of the Defendant’s wife F, and the Defendant created a pledge on the right to collateral security against E with respect to the damaged bank.

The F's above right to collateral security was a factory mortgage established on land, buildings, machinery, apparatus, etc. belonging to the E plant, and the Defendant was aware that the right to collateral security was established on machinery, apparatus, etc. in the E plant because the Defendant lent his wife's name and directly participated in the establishment of the above right to collateral security and pledge.

Nevertheless, around June 11, 2011, the Defendant sold and handed over the E office located in Sacheon-si, the machinery and apparatus type 17 (hereinafter “instant machinery and apparatus”) located in the E factory, which is the object of the said pledge, at the purchase price of KRW 660,000,000 in the Nam-gu, Incheon.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as a substantial operator of E, concealed E's objects that are the object of the rights of the damaged bank, thereby hindering the exercise of rights of the damaged bank.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. An investigation report (No. 33 No. 53 of the evidence list);

1. Application of each contract (Evidence Nos. 12 to 18, 32) statute

1. Determination as to the assertion by the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 323 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and the Defendant of the choice of imprisonment and defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument is that the owner of the instant machines and instruments is not the defendant, and the subject matter of the rights of the victimized bank is a collateral security claim, and G, the head of the branch office of the victimized bank, was aware of the disposition of the said machines and instruments, and thus, the instant machines and instruments do not constitute “self-made goods” which are the subject matter of the rights of the victimized bank, and do not mean that the

2...