The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On May 1, 201, the summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) heard from D on May 1, 201, that “I would bring about a vehicle and take the remainder of the cost to fluent it again; and (b) towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing and towing another vehicle owned by C in front of the HH industry company operating the victim G.

In addition, since the car in this case has two wheelss at the time of towing and has been damaged, the defendant thought that the car in this case has not been repaired, and there was no intention to interfere with the victim's exercise of the right of retention equivalent to the repairing cost of the car in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of the exercise of rights is erroneous.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below: ① the victim requested the repair of the instant vehicle from D on August 19, 2010; ② the victim claims the repair of the said vehicle immediately upon the request of the automobile repair business operator for the repair of the automobile and the payment of the repair cost is general; the victim attempted to prepare the repair estimate of KRW 4,491,190; and there was no other circumstance to not repair the said vehicle in this case; thus, it is reasonable to view that the victim had the right to repair cost claim against D upon the completion of the instant vehicle repair and the right to attract the said vehicle, and ② the defendant asserted that the said vehicle was not repaired as at the time of towing the instant vehicle, but it was reasonable for the victim to repair the said vehicle at the time of towing the said vehicle.