The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased BMW X5 passenger cars (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) in the name of D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant on the sales market of the BM car located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, under the name of the Defendant on October 22, 2012; (b) agreed to repay KRW 42 million from Korea Co., Ltd. for 1,162,302 each month for 48 months by borrowing KRW 1,162,302 from the damaged Non-Party Social Services Korea Co., Ltd.; and (c) set up a collateral security on the said vehicle under the victim’s name.

On June 2014, the Defendant provided the said car as security to E, a creditor at a non-permanent place, so that the location of the said car is unknown.

As a result, the defendant concealed the passenger car owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's rights, and obstructed the victim's exercise of rights.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the motor vehicle of this case was demoted to E, a creditor of the defendant, and that the motor vehicle of this case was not concealed.

There is a health stand as to whether the defendant concealed a passenger car owned by the defendant (the above vehicle shall be deemed to be owned by the defendant by the Supreme Court Decision 91Do1170 delivered on January 21, 1992) which is the object of the victim's right, and there is a F's investigative agency and legal statement as evidence corresponding thereto.

However, in full view of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant concealed the passenger car owned by the defendant as the object of the victim’s right.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

A. According to F’s investigation agency and legal statement, F also knew whether the Defendant directly transferred the said car to E, a creditor.