A. The Defendant did not have any mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that caused a passenger car entered in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to a person who has lost his name, and the said vehicle was stolen, so there was no intention in the crime of obstruction of

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act refers to the act of making it impossible or considerably difficult to discover the location of one’s own goods, etc. which are the object of another’s possession or right, and if the exercise of right is likely to be hindered, the crime of interference with exercise of right is established and the exercise of right is not required to have been interfered with (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016; 2017Do2230, May 17, 2017).

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following facts and circumstances recognized by the court below, the defendant's act of obstructing the exercise of mortgage by the victim FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.") by neglecting the location of the vehicle of this case to dry or bring about the vehicle to his name, resulting in a situation where the location of the vehicle of this case is unclear. Thus, it is recognized that this constitutes concealment of obstruction of exercise of right, and that the defendant is likely to be stolen while disposing of or leaving the vehicle of this case. Thus, the crime of obstruction of right is committed.