The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) purchased one vehicle for the use of BM5 passenger cars in the middle and high-tier trading company of the 158 K network as of August 13, 2014 in Seo-gu Incheon, and (b) agreed to have the HK Savings Bank as collateral; (c) borrowed KRW 17,00,000,000 to pay the loan at the annual interest rate of 19.9% for 36 months; and (d) set up a mortgage on the said vehicle as collateral for the loan amount on August 14, 2014.

After that, on March 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 4,50,000 from D Lending Company in the 3rd Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul, and provided the above vehicle as security and delivered it to the victim to prevent the victim from discovering the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the above vehicle owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's right.

2. The crime of interference with the exercise of right is established when one takes, conceals, or damages another's actual possession or one's own property which is the object of another's right, and even if it is the object of security, it cannot be said that the use within a reasonable scope, such as the general use of one's own vehicle or the provision of additional security, is punishable. In particular, in order to establish a concealment act, it is necessary to make it impossible or considerably difficult to identify the location of the above goods under the recognition that it interferes with another's exercise

According to the records of this case, the following circumstances revealed: ① the Defendant appears to have notified the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant borrowed bonds with employees of the victim company and offered the instant vehicle as security while making telephone conversations with employees of the victim company; ② the Defendant offered the instant vehicle as security by borrowing money from the lending company D; and the said lending company had its place of business on the 3rd Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu, and thus, the Defendant confirmed the identity of the instant vehicle.