logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.29 2018고단1678
권리행사방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 26, 2014, the Defendant purchased CM7 car volume from B located in the French land, and entered into a general loan agreement with the victim in charge of the settlement of disputes D and the principal of the loan 24,50,000 won, 36 months from December 26, 2014 to December 26, 2017, with the loan interest rate of 23.9% from December 26, 2017, and established a mortgage on the said SM7 car as a collateral for the above loan on December 29, 2014.

Nevertheless, on February 2, 2015, the Defendant offered and concealed the said SM7 car as security by borrowing KRW 3 million from the nominal and non-registered bonds company in the mutual infinite-si's dong, Seocho-si.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the above SM7 car which is the object of the victim's rights, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Complaint;

1. A contract for acceptance of assets, notice of transfer of claims, and credit transaction agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Motor Vehicle Registration Register;

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act and selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The elements of sentencing unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: A motor vehicle, which was mortgaged, does not go beyond another person for the purpose of securing the mortgage, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not somewhat weak. The possession of the motor vehicle is not recovered. The foregoing elements of sentencing are recognized as erroneous and reflective. The defendant has no same criminal history. In full view of other factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the sentence is determined as ordered in the Disposition.

arrow