The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, interference with exercise of rights.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Fraud [1] Fraud-related to the crime of fraud [2014 order 1421-1 (Separation] of the lower judgment], and at the time, the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the Daedo Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dado Tech”), and thus, did not have the intention of defraudation.

2) In relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement (the first instance judgment 2015 order 235), the Defendant paid the victim K, who is a partner, an amount of money to pay the said victim’s investment amount. As such, the Defendant is owned by the Defendant as indicated in the lower judgment.

Thus, the defendant was in the custody of another person's property.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) In relation to the crime of interference with exercise of rights (the first instance judgment 2015 order 1007), the lower judgment committed the above crime in collusion with M who is the owner of the motor vehicle as indicated in the judgment by the Defendant.

However, as the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, the defendant, who is not the owner of the above vehicle, cannot be the subject of the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the allegation related to the fraud [1] The lower court’s 2014 senior group 1421-1 (Separation], the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, as alleged in the facts charged in the lower judgment, was unable to have an intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the victim-do Tech, such as the statement of the facts charged, and that the said victim obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the construction cost.

① The Defendant denied the instant facts charged in the court of the court below, and recognized all the instant facts charged, including the criminal intent to acquire by deception on the seventh trial day of the court below.

As such, the confession statement that the defendant obtained the assistance of counsel in the court and recognized his criminal act is the same.