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

[Criminal history] On May 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on the 24th of the same month, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

[2] On September 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased Benz S600 car from a used vehicle selling company located in Yang Jae-dong, Seoul around September 14, 2012; (b) agreed to obtain a loan of KRW 29,500,000 from the Defendant on May 20, 2016 (hereinafter “victim Company”); (c) to pay the amount of the vehicle to the Victim Company and to repay the same KRW 1,228,208 including interest for 36 months; and (d) on the same day, a mortgage of KRW 29,50,500,000 is created as the mortgagee of the Victim Company with respect to the above vehicle.

Nevertheless, on July 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the middle and high-ranking business operator C in the vicinity of the World Cup games in Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, and delivered the said car as security for the above borrowed money to C, thereby making it impossible for the victim company to confirm the location of the said car.

In this respect, the Defendant concealed the passenger car owned by the Defendant, which was the object of the mortgage of the victim company, and obstructed the exercise of the rights of the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared by D;

1. Complaint;

1. A copy of a vehicle contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by reference C telephone);

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order not only interfered with the exercise of the victim's security right due to the Defendant's crime of this case, but also the amount of damage is not much.