권리행사방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The Defendant: (a) around November 18, 201, at the victim Yangyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government Office 51 Gwangju Building 304; (b) upon purchasing one truck, the Defendant agreed to borrow a loan of KRW 57,00,000 from the damaged party and the loan amount of KRW 1,902,695 per month for 48 months; and (c) the Defendant created a mortgage on the said vehicle with the victim as its mortgagee, the Defendant as its obligor, and the bond amount of KRW 57,00,000,000.
Nevertheless, the Defendant paid KRW 5,990,000 by March 7, 2012, and did not pay the remainder of the installments, and obstructed the Defendant’s exercise of rights by concealing the said vehicle, which became the object of a mortgage, to the Defendant’s obligee C, by transferring the said vehicle to the Defendant’s obligee, and thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to know its location.
2. The lower court determined that the crime of interference with the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by interfering with another person’s exercise of rights by taking, concealing, or destroying “self-owned goods” which are the object of another person’s possession or right. Thus, if an article taken, concealed, or damaged is not “self-owned goods,” there is no room to establish a crime of interference with the exercise of rights (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5064 Decided February 25, 2010). According to the entry in the vehicle registration ledger, according to the entry in the facts charged, the nominal owner of the instant truck appears at the time of committing the crime, and the Defendant was not registered as the owner. However, notwithstanding the entry in the registration ledger, the Defendant acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is the owner of the instant truck.
3. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the actual right holder of the truck of this case is the defendant, so it is established as a obstruction of exercising the right by the defendant. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.
4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made
A. The court below duly adopted.