A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On May 23, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights in the Daegu District Court’s Young-gu District Court’s Young-gu Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 20

【Criminal Facts】

On December 27, 2013, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 100,00,000 from the Defendant’s office located in Gyeongbuk-gun B through the name unclaimed winners who performed the loan business of the victim C corporation. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant and provided the victim with a collateral security right to the said sculls to secure the obligation of the loan.

After that, from February 10, 2014 to January 17, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 9,353,069,00,00,000, including vehicle installments, interest, late payment arrears, etc., to the victim, and did not pay the loan balance, KRW 95,428,228, and its interest, and requested the victim to notify the location of the above excavation for the execution of mortgage after being notified of the scheduled termination of the contract and the scheduled execution of mortgage, but did not transfer the above excavation machine to the land and notify the victim of its location, thereby hindering the victim’s exercise of rights by concealing the above excavation machine that became the object of the victim’s rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. E statements;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of construction machinery register, installment financing contract, ledger of debtor, and statutes governing the place of business;

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

1. Even if the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine of five million won due to interference with the exercise of rights even before the reason for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, it is very poor that the Defendant, even prior to the occurrence of concurrent crimes, concealed the excavation machine which is the object of the victim’s right, thereby obstructing the exercise of rights by the victim, and that the value of the excavation machine is very poor.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case.