The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, on April 5, 201, was provided by the Victim F with the vehicle owned by the Defendant as collateral, and on May 28, 2009, prior to lending money to the Defendant, the Defendant leased money to H as collateral, and the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of the private taxi offered as collateral to H if the obligation of borrowing money is not repaid, and then he was given the personal taxi’s assistant kis, etc. from H while lending the money to H, and thereafter, he was in custody by receiving the private taxi’s assistant kis, etc. from H., by failing to repay the obligation of borrowing money thereafter, he was in possession of the private taxi owned by the Defendant at his own discretion using the subsidiary kis kept on March 26, 2010, but in relation to the Defendant’s act of arbitrarily taking advantage of the foregoing agreement, it is difficult to view that the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for obstruction of business against the Defendant’s private taxi and the Defendant’s unlawful act of filing a lawsuit against the Defendant’s complaint against the Defendant.

On the other hand, on April 5, 201, the Defendant was provided by the victim F with Gststren vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by the Defendant as security, and leased KRW 6 million to the victim, but the victim agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant vehicle to the Defendant when the borrower is unable to repay the borrowed amount, and thereafter, leased KRW 6 million to the victim, as well as all the documents necessary to complete the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle from the victim.