Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor maintained the facts charged in the instant case which the court below acquitted the Defendant as the primary charge, and subsequently, maintained “the Defendant took away the Defendant’s object which was the object of the right to collateral security against the victim and obstructed the exercise of the victim’s right.” The Defendant did not inform the victim of the location of the vehicle while transferring the subject matter of the victim’s right to collateral security. Accordingly, the Defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that “the Defendant concealed the Defendant’s object which was the object of the right to collateral security against the victim and interfered with the victim’s exercise of the right to collateral security.” The subject matter of the judgment was added to the subject matter of the judgment, and as

However, there are reasons for the above ex officio destruction, but the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts concerning the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, ① “on the object” means “on the part of the possessor’s own or a third party’s control against the possessor’s will.” The Defendant changed the vehicle number of the instant vehicle and transferred it to a third party; ② The Defendant did not possess the instant vehicle at the time of changing the vehicle number; ② the Defendant changed the vehicle number of the instant vehicle and transferred it to a third party, and the Defendant’s installment payment obligation against the victim B of the limited liability company operated by the Defendant at the time of transferring it to a third party.