The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant was merely delivered the said freezing to the J of I with the intent to dispose of the instant freezing tower in accordance with B’s proposal and to repay the Defendant’s reverse mortgage obligation to the victim. As such, there was no intention to interfere with the exercise of rights.
2) Even after delivering the instant freezing to J, the Defendant sought understanding by informing the victim of the location of the vehicle and the front and rear conditions of the vehicle, and the failure of enforcement by the victim on the freezing onto the freezing is not due to the above delivery act, but due to the fact that the J did not inform the victim of the location of the freezing vehicle. Thus, the Defendant concealed the object which was the object of another’s mortgage or caused interference with exercising the right to exercise the right.
shall not be effective.
3) On October 28, 2016, J transferred the ownership of the instant freezing tower under its own name, and was unable to enforce enforcement by enforcement officers, on December 13, 2016, when it was impossible for J to enforce enforcement, the Defendant cannot be the subject of interference with exercising its rights.
B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The crime of interference with the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by the act of interference with the exercise of rights by taking, concealing, or destroying a special media record, such as one’s own goods or electronic records, which is the object
Here, “disciding” refers to impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the location of one’s own goods, etc. which are the object of another’s possession or right. If the exercise of right is likely to be obstructed, interference with exercise of right is established, and the exercise of right is not necessary to be interfered with (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016).