The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The crime of obstructing another’s exercise of rights in this case was concealed after the Defendant created a right to collateral security to the victim Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) with respect to the instant searcher, and used it to lease it to another person. The remaining amount of credit of the victim Co., Ltd. exceeds KRW 200 million with the principal. The Defendant stated that the lessee may not be able to avoid selling salt with knowledge of the location of the instant searcher’s location even though he urged the lessee to pay rent or endeavor to recover the amount of rent. In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that the location of the instant searcher would not be enough to avoid selling salt with knowledge of the location of the instant searcher.

In addition, the Defendant’s crime of injury resulting from dangerous driving and the crime of drunk driving was committed without operating the brakes beyond the central line while driving under the influence of 0.121% of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration, and the victim N on the side of the opposite side of the vehicle causing injury, such as an unstable emission frame, etc. requiring treatment for about three months, and the Defendant’s negligence is insignificant, as well as the degree of injury by the victim N is considerably heavy.

In addition, the defendant's suspended execution as a escape vehicle in 198, suspended execution in 2001 due to refusal to measure drinking, and in 2004, the defendant did not have the same criminal records as the defendant was sentenced to a fine due to drinking driving in 2004, and there is a high possibility of criticism in each of the above crimes.

However, when the defendant was in the first instance, he paid 20 million won out of the amount of damage to the victim company of the crime of obstructing another's exercise of rights of this case and promised to repay the remaining amount of damage, and the victim company did not punish the defendant, and the vehicle of the defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance.