A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant operated a manufacturing factory of automobile parts with the trade name “D” in Kimhae-si, the Defendant operated the manufacturing factory of automobile parts.

1. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 23 million from 15,000,000 to 2,300,000 from 2,000,000 to 429,000,000,000 from the Busan Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, Busan (hereinafter “victim”); and (b) granted a security right to transfer to 4,00,000,000 to 4,000,000,000,000 from 3,

On April 25, 2014, the Defendant, without the consent of the victim company, had the victim company take away 4 headings from the factory to dispose of them, and interfered with the victim company's exercise of rights.

2. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 94 million in the name of an enterprise financing “energy rationalization fund” at a two-dimensional branch of a victim company, and created a security right to transfer to the victim company each of 2 heading and 3 headings and 3 heading, which are owned by the Defendant in the D factory.

On January 16, 2016, the Defendant, without the consent of the victim company, took out 2 ring and 3 rings from the factory and obstructed the exercise of rights of the victim company by allowing the victim company to take out 2 rings and 3 rings from the factory.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The defendant asserts that he/she was unable to use the transfer security agreement, security management agreement, and equipment contract [the defendant was inevitably discarded for the operation of the factory due to the situation where three of the use of the sea of this case was already impossible, and that he/she did not intend to interfere with the exercise of security right by the victim company, but even if so,

Even if the victim company did not undergo the consultation procedure with the victim company, the opportunity to exercise the security interest of the victim company was lost, and the defendant was also aware of such circumstances.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Defendant is aware by an investigative agency that the victim company will destroy the instant sea route.