The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established when another’s exercise of right is obstructed by taking, concealing, or destroying “self-owned goods” which are the object of another’s possession or right.

Although the object of the crime of obstructing another’s exercise of rights in this case is a two-wheeled automobile and its ownership belongs to the Defendant’s wife, a registered titleholder. However, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the two-wheeled automobile is owned by the Defendant, was erroneous in matters of mistake and misapprehension

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, ① the court below served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by means of public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit (hereinafter “the Act”), and tried on February 13, 2020 when the defendant was absent, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with prison labor on February 13, 2020; ② the defendant requested the recovery of his right of appeal on May 1, 2020 when the defendant was arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with the decision of the court below formally finalized, ② the court made the request for recovery of right of appeal on May 1, 200 when the defendant was arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with the decision of the court below became final and conclusive; ③ The

According to the above facts of recognition, there is no reason attributable to the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below and there is a reason for request for retrial under the Civil Procedure Promotion Act. Thus, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure against the defendant and render a new decision according to a new trial result, so the court below's judgment cannot be maintained

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015 and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do8243 Decided November 26, 2015