The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant did not notify the defendant of the change of domicile to avoid the demand for payment of various kinds of debts. However, the defendant was notified of the demand for payment of loans at the time and did not receive the notification to return the vehicle of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case"). Even though the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the exercise of rights, the court below convicted the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The crime of obstructing the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by interfering with the exercise of rights by means of using, concealing, or destroying special media records such as one’s own goods or electronic records, which became the object of another person’s possession or right.

In this context, the term “ciding” means impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the whereabouts of oneself, etc. which are the object of another person’s possession or right. If the exercise of right is likely to be obstructed, interference with the exercise of right is established and the exercise of right is not required to be interfered with in reality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1439, Sept. 27, 1994; 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016). (b) The intention of a crime includes not only conclusive intention but also so-called failed intention which is the intention to recognize the occurrence of result (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11847, Dec. 22, 2011).