A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operated D Co., Ltd. in the racing-si.

On November 12, 2012, the Defendant obtained a loan from Gyeongnam Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant set up a factory mortgage on one of the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) the 36,573,00 won of the market price; (c) the 1st half of the smuggling amounting to KRW 22,085,00 of the market price; and (d) the 42,976,000 of the market price; and (e) the 36,573,000 of the M&C amounting to KRW 22,00.

Nevertheless, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant sold one of the aforementioned machine learning center to F at the time of the racing from the above company to F at the time of the racing, and around January 2015, the Defendant sold the said machine to G at the time of the racing from the above company to G at the time of the racing, and then transferred the said machine to the buyer without the consent of the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant concealed four machinery subject to the victim’s factory mortgage in the above manner, thereby hindering the victim’s factory mortgage exercise.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness of H;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A report on investigation (the confirmation of the date of crime);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing a full certificate of registered matters, a contract for establishment of a collateral security, an appraisal statement, and a registration certificate;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, did not agree with, or did not recover from, the victim after committing the instant crime.

However, the management status of the Defendant, which has aggravated, led to the instant crime. A total of KRW 40 million, appears to have sold the instant machinery and used it for his own individual, not for his own individual, but for his employee’s wages. The Defendant was punished twice previously, and the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., are recorded.