However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 22, 2011, the Defendant purchased a low-priced car at the point of Hyundai Motor Vehicle D located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and was granted a loan of KRW 24 million from the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on or around April 20, 201, and even around April 20, 201, the Defendant created a collateral on the said car under the name of the victim company. However, the Defendant dried the said car as a collateral for KRW 2 million borrowed from a mutual influent credit service provider located in Seocheon-si around that time to another credit service provider.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the exercise of rights by the victim company by concealing the above passenger car which is the object of the victim company's rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. An application for a plan for a development plan and the register of motor vehicles for modern Capitals;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62(1) of the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da14448, Apr. 1, 2007) (hereinafter referred to as “the reason for sentencing”) is [the scope of recommending punishment] where there are grounds for special consideration in participating in a crime (i.e., one month to August), where the scope of mitigation of punishment (i.e., interference with exercise of rights) (i., one month to August) is not agreed upon with the victim. However, the defendant is contrary to the decision of sentencing, and there is no criminal record after 207; the defendant