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

On September 13, 2016, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from Bbebe (BM) (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and obtained a loan of KRW 20 million necessary for the purchase of the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff’s Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) with the Defendant around September 13, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”). However, the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant to pay 837,230 won per month for 36 months, and received the instant vehicle purchase fund from the victimized Company on the same day, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on September 19, 2016 with respect to the instant vehicle on the same day as that of the victimized Company.

Nevertheless, while the Defendant did not pay all the principal and interest of the instant loan after November 2016, the Defendant concealed the instant vehicle by arbitrarily delivering the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant to the person who was the mortgagee and making it impossible for the Defendant to know the location of the instant vehicle as necessary for the exercise, on any day between the end of December 2016 and the beginning of January 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the defendant's property which was the object of the right of the damaged company and obstructed the exercise of the right of the damaged company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, content certification, loan contract, vehicle acquisition certificate, vehicle registration ledger, bond account statement, and all matters to be registered by the corporation;

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 323 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act during the period of double class repeated crime on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; on the other hand, the size of loans for the purchase of the instant vehicle, which is a used vehicle, is not so large; and on the other hand, the light management loans extended to the Defendant, a company acquiring a claim for loans from the victimized company, are extended.