[Defendant B] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On April 6, 2017, Defendant B was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court on April 6, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 21, 201, the Defendants agreed to pay the principal and interest at an annual interest rate of 12.7% for 60 months after purchasing the victim D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul, with the Defendant’s name in 201 and borrowing KRW 139,900,000 from the victim company for the purchase of the vehicle from the victim company for three months. The victim set up a right to collateral security for the said D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D with the maximum amount of debt.

However, the Defendants, while paying a loan every month, did not pay a loan from November 2012, and did not keep the above dump truck which is the object of the mortgage as above, sold the above dump truck with approximately KRW 28 million for a person who was missing in name at the vicinity of the G Elementary School located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on February 2013.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal the goods of the Defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of right.

[Defendant A and his defense counsel] Dump trucks (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

There is no participation at all in the process of transferring B, and there is only the fact that B issued a certificate of personal seal impression as the nominal owner upon B’s request, and there is no participation in the crime of obstruction of rights.

Defendant

B and the defense counsel asserted that if Defendant B is not the owner of the instant vehicle, and the accomplice against Defendant A is not recognized, the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights cannot be established, and that the said Defendant was expected to take over the collateral security obligation, and that there was no concealment of the instant vehicle by receiving only the remaining difference.

However, it can be admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court.