A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 30, 2013, the Defendant borrowed 20 million won (the balance of loans: 19,500,820 won) from the victim E Co., Ltd. (F) in the course of purchasing Dmp vehicles from Won-gu, Seocheon-si, Busan, and created a mortgage equivalent to 20 million won in the name of the victimized Co., Ltd. on the 31st of the same month.

However, the defendant transferred the above vehicle to G who want to get a so-called working loan on his job and distributed it as a so-called large vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the goods of the defendant, which is the object of the right of the damaged company, and obstructed the exercise of the right of the damaged company

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning H;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Details of the investigation report (Submission of data by the complainant's agent) and the request/receiving;

1. An agreement of installment financing (A);

1. Application of the register of automobiles (D) legislation

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of a type]: Obstruction, etc. of another’s exercise of rights [Class 1] and no obstruction of another’s exercise of rights [the scope of recommending and recommending a person] [the scope of recommending a person] and the basic area of recommendation, six months to one year;

2. From the beginning of the decision of sentence, the vehicle was purchased from the beginning to dispose of the vehicle purchased with the loan, and the above vehicle appears to be used as the so-called “large-type vehicle”, and the vehicle was not recovered and its damage was not repaid.

However, the defendant did not directly distribute the above vehicle as a "large-sized vehicle", and it appears that the defendant voluntarily reported it to the administrative agency, and considering the fact that the defendant did not have any criminal records at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant's age, character and behavior reflects the mistake.