According to the records, the defendant, around December 3, 1981, operated a multi-level sales contract to transfer the above multi-level premium of KRW 10,000,00 to the victim who was the complainant of this case on November 18, 1983, and then transferred the multi-level deposit of KRW 2,00,000 on the day when he received the down payment of KRW 2,00,000 on the day when he operated the multi-level deposit, and transferred the multi-level deposit to the multiple-level. The defendant asserted that the contract was cancelled due to dispute between the defendant and the victim (the defendant asserted that the victim did not pay the transfer price at once, and the victim was entitled to refuse to pay the balance of the transfer price because the victim was subject to the lease period of the multi-level building or the debt amount of the owner of the building and concluded the above contract). In this case, the court below acknowledged that the defendant had the right to use the gas-level to the defendant from the victim by exercising the right of the plaintiff's right to use of the right.

However, the crime of obstruction of another person's exercise of right is established when one takes possession of, benefiting from, or damages to his own property, which is the object of another person's possession or right, and generally, the crime of obstruction of another person's exercise of right is established when the person who operated multiple businesses takes possession of, or destroys and interferes with another person's exercise of right. In the event that the transferee takes multiple businesses by transferring and delivering multiple rights within the multiple banks, barring special circumstances, the ownership of the facilities shall be transferred to the transferee. If the transfer contract is cancelled later, the ownership of the facilities shall be naturally restored to the transferor. Thus, in this case, the court below should have determined whether the transfer contract remains in force, and whether the ownership of the facilities within the multiple banks is the transferee, or whether the ownership of the facilities is returned to the defendant who is the transferor, or whether the above transfer contract was cancelled, or whether the above contract was cancelled, separate from the cancellation of the transfer contract, and whether there was a procedure to determine the elements of obstruction of another person's exercise of right, and thus, the court below should have determined whether the above facilities belong to the evidence or without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)