A. Although the defendant did not have an intention to conceal the instant vehicle, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights by deeming that there was an intentional intent as above.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act, which finds a mistake of fact, is established by taking, concealing, or destroying one’s own property, etc. which is the object of another’s possession or right

Here, “discepting” means impossible or considerably difficult to detect the whereabouts of oneself, etc. which are the object of possession or right of another person, and if the exercise of right is likely to be hindered, it does not require that the obstruction of exercise of right is established and that the exercise of right has been interfered with in reality.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2230 Decided May 17, 2017, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of all the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s act of completely delivering the instant vehicle, which was established a mortgage for the purpose of borrowing money, to D is an act of remarkably difficult or impossible for the mortgagee to grasp the location of the vehicle which was the object of the mortgage on the basis of the register of automobiles, and the Defendant’s perception that the exercise of the mortgagee’s right may be impeded or impeded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of obstruction of the exercise of rights against the defendant is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.