The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the victim company did not receive a request from the victim company for return of the vehicle, and the victim company could return the vehicle at any time and there was such intention.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act does not fall under “cidion” and did not have any intention to obstruct the Defendant’s exercise of rights. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the term “coverage” in the process of obstructing the exercise of rights refers to impossible or considerably difficult to detect the location of one’s own goods, etc. which are the object of another’s possession or right. If the exercise of rights is likely to be hindered, the obstruction of the exercise of rights is established and the exercise of rights is practically obstructed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① obtaining a loan of KRW 19 million from the victim KF Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) around February 1, 2013, the company is not required to have a mortgage over the vehicle owned by the defendant in this case, ② established a mortgage over the victim’s name or manage the remainder of the contract to establish a mortgage over the victim’s loan at will.