logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.11.17 2016고단2262
권리행사방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 20 million from the victim non-Ssc Capital Co., Ltd. (on the present non-NNc Capital) at the new car trade complex located on a 12-lane 652-gil, as the Pyeongtaek-si games around 11, 2015, and purchased the third party car, and made a mortgage on the said car in the name of the victim company on March 13, 2015.

On November 2015, the Defendant borrowed money from the name-free bond company as collateral for the said passenger vehicle from the off-to-land of Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as Pyeongtaek-si) and delivered the said passenger vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the goods of the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, and interfered with the victim's exercise of right.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). (b) The defendant asserts to the effect that D, the husband of the defendant, borrowed money as security from a person who is the husband of the defendant on May 2015, delivered the above vehicle to the non-party, and the defendant was aware of such fact only on June 2017.

(c)

In light of the above facts, there are evidence as shown in the above facts, such as ① a statement of the police about E, ② a complaint of the police, ③ a motor vehicle registration ledger, ④ a motor vehicle mortgage establishment contract, ⑤ a motor vehicle delivery impossibility report, etc., and each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to dismiss the above facts charged, and to prove the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, this case.

arrow