beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the event that the account in the name of the company was seized, the Defendant committed a preservative measure such as seizure and provisional seizure simultaneously and simultaneously and the creditors began to pay back on November 2012, 2012, and the Defendant did not conceal a vehicle for the purpose of obstructing the victim’s exercise of rights. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.
2. As acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, as long as the defendant purchased the e-car in the name of Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd. in which he serves as the representative director on May 15, 2012 and took out a loan of KRW 67 million from the victim NonSF Capital Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the said car as a security, the victim company has the right as a mortgagee on the said car, and the transfer of the possession of the said car by borrowing money from a person in secret in the event that there is no protective measure against the majority creditors due to the facing the insolvency situation of the defendant, constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of rights, since the location of the property is unknown for the purpose of obstructing the exercise of the rights of
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
3. The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable to take into account the withdrawal of the complaint by the victim company after consultation with the victim company after the complaint in this case.
However, there are circumstances that make it difficult for the defendant to enforce compulsory execution by making the location of the car unknown without neglecting the duty of care as a mortgager, and it has already been made in the court below.