However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 29, 2013, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the victim B Co., Ltd., and borrowed KRW 22,50,000 from the victim to purchase the C SP car. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant established a mortgage on the said car with the victim as the mortgagee and the claim amount of KRW 22,50,000.

Nevertheless, on May 1, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 8.5 million from a bond company with the name of “D” company at the French land and transferred the said car to the bond company as collateral.

Accordingly, the Defendant concealed the car owned by the Defendant, which was the object of the victim's mortgage, and obstructed the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning filing of a complaint, loan contract, sales contract of a motor vehicle, request for payment of installment, register of motor vehicle, protocol of impossibility of delivery of motor vehicles, and

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of the sentencing guidelines for recommendation [the scope of recommendation] under the category 1 (Obstruction of Exercise of Rights) and the basic area (6-1 year) of the sentencing guidelines; and

2. Determination of sentence: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the primary offender was the first offender; (c) the primary offender was favorable; (d) the victim was not agreed with the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment; (d) motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and (e) circumstances after the instant crime were considered.