The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable by the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment).

2. The record reveals: (a) around June 28, 2012, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 22.9 million from the victim Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Company”) and purchased a set of KRW 2.5 million and registered as the Defendant on the 29th day of the same month after delivery of the said vehicle; (b) around that time, the Defendant completed the registration of mortgage with respect to the said vehicle as the obligor, the victim company as the mortgagee, the victim company as the mortgagee, and the mortgage amount of KRW 16,30,000; and (c) at the time of the establishment of the mortgage, the Defendant agreed to return the said vehicle to the victim company and auction the said vehicle as the mortgaged object or recover and manage the said vehicle; and (c) the Defendant was given an installment payment of KRW 5,500,000 from January 1, 2013 to the effect that the Defendant did not have any contact with the victim on his own account of having no contact with the victim on the changed vehicle.

According to the above facts, it is deemed that the defendant transferred his own car, which was the object of the mortgage of the victim company, to a third party, so it is virtually impossible to exercise the claim for installment loans equivalent to KRW 20 million. Thus, the above act of the defendant constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of the right.

Considering that the defendant is against the defendant, and the defendant's intention to pay installments from the beginning or to dispose of the vehicle immediately after purchasing the vehicle does not seem to have committed the crime of this case systematically below, the victim is the victim.