The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the obstruction of another’s exercise of right, the Defendant’s act of taking each vehicle in the name of C, as the actual manager of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) as indicated in the facts charged, is deemed to have taken the Defendant’s possession of the goods owned by C as the actual manager of C, and thus constitutes a crime of obstructing the exercise of right.

Nevertheless, on different premises, the court below acquitted the Defendant of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, which is the primary charge, and found the Defendant guilty of the larceny, which is the primary charge, erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Co., Ltd. B (hereinafter “B”).

In light of the fact that S, a representative director of S, borrowed a vehicle under the name of B, including the victims, as collateral, and then committed suicide, and the defendant was requested by the victims, including the victims, to stop an auction on the above vehicles, and the defendant transferred the vehicle under B to C after the establishment of C and managed the above situation, such as acquiring the right to transport the vehicle under B, and if there was no effort by the defendant, it seems that all the victims' branch vehicles, etc. were disposed of by auction. In light of the above, the defendant was delegated by the branch owner including the victims with the authority to manage the vehicle under the name of B, and the defendant possessed the vehicle under the possession of the victims as described in the facts charged.