The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 10 million) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to a judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, we examine it ex officio.

A statutory penalty for obstruction of another’s exercise of rights is imprisonment for not more than five years under Article 323 of the Criminal Act, or a fine not exceeding seven million won.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that sentenced a fine of KRW 10 million exceeding the maximum statutory penalty is unlawful in recognizing all the charges of this case, which constitute a crime of interference with the exercise of rights, shall not be maintained any more as it is unlawful.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the gist of evidence is identical to the facts in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act and Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment was that the Defendant purchased a vehicle at a discount, and the Defendant transferred the vehicle to the “E” in the form of eight times of installment payments, and the Defendant did not know the location of the vehicle until the lapse of about two years thereafter.

The defendant's crime of this case not only causes economic damage to prevent the victim from exercising his security right, but also causes social harm to the massping of the large vehicle.

Up to now, victims have not been recovered from damage.

On the other hand, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.