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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Criminal facts

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant decided to pay the principal and interest to the Victim B Co., Ltd. for 36 months at the Jung-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, the Defendant purchased the Crane car by borrowing nine million won from the victim Co., Ltd., and on July 2, 2014, the Defendant created a mortgage on the bond value of 6.3 million won on the vehicle for the purpose of securing a loan for the victim.

On September 2014, the Defendant received 4 million won from a member of the Chungcheong City, a person who is unable to know his name without the consent of the victim, and sold the said vehicle to the victim and prevented the victim from ascertaining the location of the said vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the above vehicle owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right, and interfered with the victim's exercise of right.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A copy of an installment financing agreement;

1. The defendant asserts that in order to raise living expenses, the defendant merely borrowed 4 million won as collateral of the vehicle stated in the facts constituting the crime and did not intend to interfere with the victim's exercise of rights.

The crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by concealing one’s own property which has become the object of another’s right.

Here, the term “cambing” refers to the discovery of the whereabouts of one’s own goods, etc., which became the object of another’s right, or placing them in a situation where it is considerably difficult, and if the exercise of rights is likely to be obstructed, it does not require that the obstruction of exercise of rights is established, and that the exercise of rights has

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1439, Sept. 27, 1994; 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016). Meanwhile, with respect to the obstruction of exercise of rights, an intentional act may interfere with another’s exercise of rights by concealing one’s own property which became the subject of the right.