A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Criminal facts

On January 20, 2012, the Defendant purchased DFR car at the member-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ansan-si, in the amount of KRW 19 million, and borrowed KRW 19 million from the victim AF Capital Co., Ltd. and set up a mortgage on the said car at the bond price of KRW 13.3 million.

Nevertheless, on March 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 7,50,000 to E who is a bond company at the Buddhist land and delivered the said vehicle to the collateral company, and made it impossible to identify the location of the vehicle.

In this respect, the Defendant concealed goods that were the object of the mortgage, which was the victim, and obstructed the exercise of the right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A complaint filed for the preparation of a Capital Capital;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the receipt of the principal and interest of disposable discrimination, the register of automobiles and application form for error;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act and Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding Article 62-2 (1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant borrowed money to the bond company E as collateral for the victim's mortgage (hereinafter "the instant vehicle"), but the defendant knew the victim of the above vehicle borrowed money as collateral, the location in the investigation process was confirmed, and as long as E manages and operates the said vehicle, the defendant's act of transferring the above vehicle on which the mortgage was established with the money does not constitute "harbor" as referred to in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights.

"Harboring" prescribed by the exercise of rights means that the whereabouts of a thing is impossible or considerably difficult, and it is based on each of the above evidence.