1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. It is reasonable to include “self-owned property” under Article 323 of the Criminal Act, which is the object of obstructing the exercise of rights as to the gist of grounds for appeal, in the goods used and managed by the defendant, and in fact owned by the defendant.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the instant case on the ground that the instant motor vehicle cannot be seen as the Defendant’s goods, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

For the first time, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged of obstructing the previous exercise of rights against the defendant as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with the same content as the statement in the column of "criminal facts (preliminary charges)" among the facts charged under Article 355 (2) and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act in the preliminary application law, while maintaining the facts charged of obstructing the defendant's exercise of rights as the primary facts charged, and the court permitted this.

In doing so, as examined in Paragraph 3 below, this Court has maintained the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained, inasmuch as the facts charged in the preliminary charge were subject to the judgment of the court, and this court found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive facts charged, as seen below, in the judgment of the court below that the previous primary facts charged was the subject of the judgment

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is determined below.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant purchased the amount of DSS5 car at the C office located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, on October 8, 2015; and (b) KRW 8,900,000 from the Victim F Co., Ltd. in the name of his spouse E.