Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On September 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased a vehicle car engine (C) at a f66-occincule shop located in the Gecheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (b) on September 15, 2014; (c) on September 18, 2014, “The Defendant paid KRW 758,809 as of the last day of each month during the 60-month period from September 18, 2014 to October 25, 2019; and (d) secured the said vehicle and set up a mortgage against the Defendant’s Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. as a creditor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not repay KRW 21,217,146 from February 28, 2017.

On July 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) concealed the said vehicle in Dongducheon-si D and obstructed the exercise of the right to the security of the victim who applied for voluntary auction of automobiles to appropriate the said vehicle for repayment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A complaint, installment contract, details of delivery of Lmm letters, voluntary decision-making on an auction of a motor vehicle, protocol of impossibility of delivery of a motor vehicle, register of motor vehicle registration, written statements, suspect vehicle photographs, and investigation report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the criminal facts of this case and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant’s smooth agreement with the victim; and (c) the fact that there was no record of special criminal punishment except for the punishment of a fine once for fraud in 2004.

However, the crime of this case by concealing the vehicle provided as security by the defendant to the victim and obstructing the exercise of the victim's mortgage is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the contents and methods of the crime, the balance of general punishment in the same and similar cases, and the defendant's person expressed in the argument of this case.