logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.02.21 2017고단2578
권리행사방해
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court on September 12, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 6, 2017.

On June 11, 2014, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with Hyundai Capital (State) to purchase automobiles, and acquired loans of KRW 10 million from the Hyundai Capital Capital to C to purchase a vehicle with the aim of purchasing the vehicle as collateral, and set up a right to collateral security with the mortgagee's modern Capital, mortgagee, and debtor's maximum credit amount of KRW 5 million with respect to the vehicle as collateral.

On May 20, 2016, the first asset-backed securitization specializing in the victim LAS Co., Ltd. acquired the credit and all rights to the Defendant from the Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.

On June 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 20:00, the Seo-gu Daejeon District Court rendered it impossible for the Defendant to exercise the right of confluence on the said vehicle to receive KRW 2,00,000 from a person who was unaware of his name before the KBS Broadcasting Station located in the Dong, and sell the said vehicle to the victim so that the victim may not recover the secured purpose vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant's goods, which are the object of the victim's rights, were concealed, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal history;

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act and selection of punishment by imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code dealing with concurrent crimes: Provided, however, there is a favorable circumstance that the Defendant purchased a vehicle from the beginning to the beginning in order to transfer the vehicle from the beginning with the intention of transferring the vehicle from the beginning, and as a result, the vehicle is operated by a third party without mandatory insurance until now without regular inspection, and the damage to the victim is not guaranteed if the accident occurs due to a vehicle defect, etc., and the damage to the victim is not recovered from the damage in this case.

arrow