The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, since at the time of the concealment of the facts charged, J Co., Ltd., the owner of dump truck as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant agreed to hold ownership of the above dump truck, the Defendant owned ownership of the above dump truck.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding a not guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding facts.

2. Judgment on the primary facts charged (Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts)

A. On July 14, 201, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant purchased one dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) in Seogu-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu and agreed to borrow KRW 85,00,000 for dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) from the victim F Co., Ltd. with a loan of KRW 85,00,000 for dump truck and to repay the principal and interest equally for 3,026,250 for 36 months. On July 15, 201, the Defendant established a mortgage on the above dump truck under the name of the victim company whose amount of the loan is the bond amount.

Nevertheless, on September 2012, the Defendant transferred the said dump truck to H while failing to pay all the above principal and interest on the road in front of the residence of the Defendant located in Gyeong-si, Gyeong-si, and had the victim company not grasp the location of the said dump truck, thereby interfering with the exercise of rights by the victim company, which is the mortgagee.

B. The crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by the act of interference with another’s exercise of right by taking, concealing, or destroying “self-owned goods” which are the object of another’s possession or right. Thus, if the taken, concealed, or damaged goods are not “self-owned goods,” there is no room to establish

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6604, Nov. 10, 2005).