Nevertheless, on February 2013, when the Defendant did not pay the installment to the victim company, the Defendant borrowed additional money as collateral with the said passenger vehicle from February 2, 2013 to April 201, and received a loan from the credit service provider of the trade name, “F,” which was the sum of KRW 9,250,000 from around February 2013 to around April 201, and thereafter, given the said passenger vehicle to the “F” employee.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the passenger car owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, and interfered with the victim's exercise of right.

Judgment

Whether or not the defendant has concealed the passenger car owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, there is a health belt, a police statement of G police as evidence corresponding thereto, and a complaint of G.

However, in full view of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant concealed the passenger car owned by the defendant as the subject of the victim's right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

G’s written statement of the police in relation to G and the written accusation in relation to G are contents of G’s statement, and G was not aware of whether the Defendant directly transferred the said car to an employee of the credit service provider.

(b) was related to the defendant;