Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 23, 201, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) obtained a loan of KRW 50 million from the victim’s social corporation (hereinafter “victim”) to purchase Dbenz E350 (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) with the said money, and subsequently made a transfer registration of the ownership of a motor vehicle in C future while establishing a collateral security right of KRW 50 million with a claim value of KRW 50 million for the instant vehicle in the middle and middle in the name of the victimized Co., Ltd. to repay the said loan for the period of 36 months.

By September 25, 2011, C paid the total of KRW 6.256.950 on three occasions to the damaged company and began to pay the installments thereafter.

On September 201, the Defendant, based on the status of C representative director, provided the instant vehicle as security to E, a creditor of C, as the act of performing his duties, and made E use of the said vehicle. On May 2012, the Defendant obstructed the exercise of the right of the damaged company by delivering and concealing the instant vehicle owned by C from Busan (hereinafter referred to as “unclaimed land”) to E.

Although the original facts charged are described as if the defendant is the actual owner of the company in the middle and third class, the motor vehicle like the company in the middle class of this case becomes the standard for determining whether the "registration" belongs to ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do1632, Nov. 12, 1974). However, in a case where the representative director of a corporation takes the goods of the company in the middle class of the company in possession of another person as the act of performing his duties based on the status of representative director, the above act is deemed as the act of representative of the company in the above act, and therefore, the above company's goods also should be deemed as "self-goods" in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1170, Jan. 21, 192). The process of acquiring ownership is based on C, and the act of interference with the exercise of rights is limited to the defendant's act of performing his duties based on