A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the actual operator of C, and the victim D is the borrower who has entered into a contract with C from April 5, 2013 to enter into a local entry contract (the above consignment management contract) with C, and is in possession of the E, Han Han P, Inc. and operates it.

On July 4, 2016, the Defendant opened and driven a repair hole of the foregoing EM vehicle parked at the G G G open port located in the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun F, Gyeonggi-si on July 4, 2016.

As a result, the defendant taken the above vehicle owned by another person, and thereby interfered with the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement in court by the defendant that he arbitrarily takes a vehicle as stated in D at the time and place of the ruling;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the D's statement);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of H with respect to the police;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Original Register of Automobile Registration;

1. Application of the statutes governing the above entrustment management contract;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for one month to five years;

2. The scope of the sentence recommended on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended sentence] that interferes with the exercise of the right, the basic area (six months to one year) (no person who is subject to any special sentencing).

3. Although the sentence of sentence was determined, it was a situation in which the damage to the defendant who is the actual guarantor of the joint and several liability because the injured person did not pay the vehicle installments;

Although the victim was unable to pay the installment of the vehicle due to the failure of the victim to receive the claim from the observer of the place of the defendant's operation;

The nature of the crime is not good in that it unilaterally takes place the instant vehicle while there is a mutual dispute as to the obligation relationship with the victim, such as the claimant's assertion.

However, the defendant has been punished for the same crime.