All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of interference with the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by interfering with the exercise of rights by taking, concealing, or destroying special media records, such as its own goods or electronic records, which are the object of possession or right of another

In this context, “disciding” means impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the location of oneself, etc. which is the object of another person’s possession or right. If the exercise of right is likely to be obstructed, interference with the exercise of right is established and the exercise of right is interfered with in reality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016). On December 21, 2018, the prosecutor: (a) the Defendants established a right to collateral on the instant building and machinery; (b) violated the duty to remove or destroy the instant building; and (c) filed a prosecution for the transfer of the instant machinery, apparatus, etc. on the ground of breach of trust; and (d) filed an application for changes in the indictment with the intent of interfering with the exercise of right on September 25, 2019.

As to the obstruction of the above exercise of rights, the court below acknowledged the defendants' family relation, status and role in E (hereinafter "E"), ownership relation of E site, E's act in the process of concluding a contract to establish a right to collateral with a loan from H association Seoul Young Military Branch, E's act, the process of removal and transfer of the instant building and machinery, and ownership relation of a wedding hall building newly constructed after the removal of the instant building, and completed the registration of destruction after the defendants removed the instant building, and completed the registration of destruction after the defendants removed the instant building, which became the object of the victim's right, and obstructed the victim's exercise of right by destroying or concealing the Defendants' goods which became the object of the victim's right by transferring the instant machinery

The judgment of conviction was found guilty.

The aforementioned legal principles and legitimate adoption.