A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 17, 2013, the Defendant purchased 123,627,951 won from the victims' large social Korea Co., Ltd. in the amount of 48 months and the amount of principal and interest in the amount of 123,627,951 won in the amount of 48 months, and established a mortgage on the amount of the preserved claim against the above A8 motor vehicle of the above A123,627,951 won in the amount of 123,627,951 won in the amount of the preserved claim on October 23, 2013.

The Defendant refused a request from the injured party for return of a A. A.8 car on August 25, 2014, which became the object of the victim’s right, even though the Defendant did not pay the installment price for the car owned by the injured party, which is the object of the victim’s right, and at around that time, obstructed the victim’s exercise of mortgage by concealing the car owned by the injured party, which was the object of the victim’s mortgage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the witness D and E in the third public trial protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol of impossibility to deliver automobiles, the register of automobile registration, the written decision of the court of voluntary auction on automobiles, the written agreement of installment financing, and details of installment financing payments;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 323 of the Criminal Act regarding the crime

1. The main point of the argument is that the vehicle of this case was not the defendant but the defendant's partner

F was used by F, and the victim company was aware of this point at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the said vehicle, and the person who received the said vehicle from the victim company was not the defendant but the F.

In light of these circumstances, the intent of concealment cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the Defendant was unable to return the said vehicle because he was unable to know the F’s location or the location of the said vehicle.

2. Evidence adopted and examined by this Court.