The defendant is a person who has operated the LAC.

On July 17, 2013, the defendant extended a loan of 65,000,000 won from the victim's main financial securities (ju) in Young-gun D's office, the defendant set up a mortgage on the mortgagee's comprehensive financial securities (ju), debtor's credit rating C, the bond value of 65,00,000 won for the 7.5 tons truck in Korea.

On January 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from a person who is not the name of the Defendant and promised to sell the said vehicle and repay the borrowed money if he/she is unable to repay the borrowed money. On September 2014, the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money. On September 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily delivered the said vehicle to the obligee in the name of the Defendant and made it impossible for the victim to confirm the location of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the above vehicle which is the object of the victim's mortgage, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of credit transaction agreements, repayment lines, and the Acts and subordinate statutes of the respective ledger of motor vehicle registration;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 323 of the Criminal Act in relation to the relevant criminal facts and Article 323 of the choice of punishment;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall not interfere with the exercise of the right, the basic area (from June to one year) (the person who is subject to special sentencing];

2. Determination of sentence: The defendant in October recognized the crime of this case by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the actual amount of damage caused by the crime of this case was not restored to the defendant even after the name was given, the defendant applied for the postponement of the date of pronouncement several times after the conclusion of pleadings, and even if the date of pronouncement was postponed several times on account of the victim's repayment of damage after the conclusion of pleadings, the defendant did not appear on the date of the postponed declaration.