The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was on July 7, 2014, the Defendant purchased L Excavation Construction Machinery (hereinafter “instant digging machine”) in the name of F Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant in the name of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and set up a collateral security right at KRW 18 million with respect to the above digging machine as collateral for the said loan obligation by taking out a loan from the victim JBk Capital Co., Ltd. (payment of KRW 36 months, interest 14.9%, interest 14.9%, monthly payment of KRW 1308,491) from the victim JBk Capital Co., Ltd. under the pretext of a loan for the purchase of used cars.

However, on February 10, 2015, the Defendant had a person with poor name to drive the above excavation equipment at the construction site, but did not inform the victim of the location of the construction site where the excavation equipment was put into the construction site, so the victim cannot be identified.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed his own property, which is the object of the victim's right, and obstructed the victim's exercise of right.

The indictment and the judgment of the court below are written in E, but according to the construction machinery register (10 pages of investigation records), it is obvious that it is a clerical error of L, so it is corrected.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are the ownership of F Co., Ltd., and at the time of loan, the representative director is H. After the Defendant was registered as the representative director, the Defendant failed to take over the instant digging pool from H. Since H merely managed and operated the instant digging ground, the Defendant did not conceal the instant digging ground.

In addition, G, an employee of JB Han Capital Co., Ltd., stated in the court below that at the bar site prior to the execution of the extradition of the digging machines of this case, G had confirmed the registration number of the digging machines of this case from the Defendant, but at the time, G was confirmed by G, since it is not other than the digging machines of this case, G’s testimony cannot be trusted.