Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Defendant A’s interference with the exercise of the right by Defendant A was known that B was aware that at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the vehicle was not returned.

Although this was supported by B’s prosecutor’s statement, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict against Defendant A on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of obstructing the exercise of the above right, which was erroneous by mistake in fact.

B) In full view of the fact that Defendant B’s fraud against Defendant B’s Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., a person under the name of the loan contract, stated that the O would arbitrarily dispose of the vehicle to a third party if he did not repay the loan, and theO did not have the intent or ability to repay the above loan, etc., Defendant B was acknowledged to have obtained the loan by deceiving the victim, and thus, Defendant B should have the intention to commit fraud. Thus, the judgment below which acquitted Defendant B on this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant B: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor) against the illegal Defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. 1) The summary of Defendant A’s interference with Defendant A’s exercise of rights among each of the facts charged in the instant case is that “In collusion with Defendant A in collusion with Defendant A, at the time and place specified in Article 5113 subparag. 2 of the lower judgment, Defendant A concealed the vehicle owned by Defendant A, which was the object of mortgage of the victim capital company, and thereby interfered with the victim’s exercise of rights.”

The court below's statement at the prosecution and the police, the only evidence that Defendant A conspired to dispose of the vehicle originally purchased, is the only evidence.