1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3. However, this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(Definite argument was withdrawn).

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s intent or ability to repay is sufficient at the time of borrowing the instant charges. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendant on the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the detailed circumstances stated in the item of “2. Judgment” among the “not guilty portion” of the judgment, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount at the time of the instant borrowing.

“For the reasons, the Court rendered a not guilty verdict of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

The crime of obstructing another’s exercise of rights in this case interferes with the exercise of rights by the victim F by driving a car offered as security by the Defendant without permission. In light of the method of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, the poor nature of the crime was committed, the Defendant had been punished by a fine due to interference with the exercise of rights twice, and there was a criminal record of a total of four times of punishment including one time of suspended execution due to fraud, and it is recognized that there was no agreement with the victim E

However, when the defendant was in the trial, the defendant recognized the crime of obstructing the exercise of the right of this case and opposed to it, the defendant agreed with the victim F (O) in the trial, and the defendant was the victim F.