beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.12.17 2013고정2422

권리행사방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:00 on June 2, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with C, lent KRW 15,000,000 to the victim E on the first floor of the 602 Dong-dong, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment and occupied as collateral, and obstructed the exercise of the victim’s right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement of C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (F vehicle register);

1. Relevant Articles 323 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 323 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act of this case by the defendant is excluded from illegality, since the defendant and his defense counsel did not have a legitimate title to possess the vehicle of this case as to the facts charged of this case.

However, “the possession of another person” subject to protection in the obstruction of exercise of right does not necessarily mean possession based on the right to possess. On the other hand, possession in the event of loss of the source of right after the commencement of possession based on lawful title, and possession in the event of loss of the source of right after the commencement of possession, the existence of the source of right is not clear in appearance, and possession in the process of legal procedure until the existence of the source of right is clarified, or possession in the process of simultaneous performance defense, etc. that may oppose the simultaneous performance defense, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6578, Oct. 14, 2010). As long as each of the above evidence recognizes the fact that the victim received the instant vehicle for the purpose of security, unlike its intention, the victim’s right to possess until the victim’s right to possess is resolved.