The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the victim company was the right holder of the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below, or did not understand the meaning of the establishment of the right to collateral, and that the transfer of the vehicle on which the right to collateral security was established could be a violation of the exercise of the right.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to obstruct the exercise of right.

In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant made it difficult to grasp the location of the vehicle as stated in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of interference with the exercise of right to a mistake of facts, there is a perception that the act is one's own property which is the object of possession or right of another person, and that it interferes with the exercise of right of another person by taking, concealing, or destroying it, and there is sufficient negligence.

As to this case, we examine this case.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant agreed to set up a collateral on the instant vehicle at the time of applying for a loan to purchase a heavy loan for the instant vehicle. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the defendant transferred the instant vehicle from the bond company to use it for gambling funds with a large amount of debt, and thus it became difficult to grasp the location of the said vehicle, and that the defendant was aware that the mortgage was created in the future of the victim in order to secure a loan to the instant vehicle, and that the disposal of the vehicle provided as a collateral was erroneous.

Therefore, the defendant is the defendant.