A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a representative director of limited partnership D.

While the Defendant was trying to replace the E-si operated period of the said E-si belonging to the said Company, the Defendant became aware of the fact that F, an executive director of the said Company, the Defendant, as the executive director of the said Company, created a collateral security (G, H, I, J, K, L, and E) with the victim N about 80 million won (G, H, I, J, K, L, and E) of the said Company, including E.

The defendant thought that the establishment of the right to collateral security on the company's property between the representative director and his unaware person was invalid registration, and it was considered that the victim could not terminate the right to collateral security unless the debt is repaid.

Although the Defendant would be subject to an administrative fine if he did not replace the above E-si with the operating period, the Defendant was unable to replace the taxi due to the right to collateral security established by the victim, with the victim's commented on the part of the false language, and was able to receive the cancellation of the right to collateral security.

On March 31, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendant would re-establish the collateral security after replacing the vehicle on the ground of the collateral because it was not possible to replace the vehicle due to the collateral for E-si to change the vehicle.”

However, the defendant did not intend to re-establish the right to collateral security because the above right to collateral security was considered null and void.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount from the rescission of the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 280,000,000 from the victim on the same day.

2. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties: (a) requested the Defendant to dismiss the Victim N, a private taxi engineer affiliated with Defendant’s limited partnership company D and deliver the victim’s O taxi; (b) however, the victim argued that the dismissal procedure is unreasonable; and (c) exercised the power to force the Defendant to not return the taxi.