A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the obstruction of another’s exercise of rights or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the contrary, it merely rejected the return of the said car to BA, but not concealing the said car with the intent to interfere with the victim AY’s exercise of right to collateral security.

B. Even if all the facts charged of this case were guilty, considering the fact that the defendant committed a crime of this case, committed a mistake in depth, and paid part of damage to some victims, the court below’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by: (a) taking, concealing, or destroying special media records, such as one’s own goods or electronic records, which are the object of another’s possession or right; and (b) “ciding” in this context refers to impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the subject matter of one’s own goods, etc. which are the object of another’s possession or right; and (c) if there is a concern that the exercise of right may interfere with the exercise of right, it does not require that interference with the exercise of right should be established and that the exercise of right has been interfered with actually (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1439, Sept. 27, 1994; 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 206). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the court below duly adopted the evidence and duly examined the evidence.