beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was the representative director of the private party to the land of C tourist bus (ju) D; (b) around September 5, 2013, sold the said tourist bus at KRW 35 million to the victim E, who was the borrower, around September 5, 2013; and (c) received KRW 19.5 million in total as a down payment and installment from October 2014.
The above tourist bus should submit a list of regular inspection results to the competent authority every six months and obtain an extension of permission for the operation of business. However, even if the victims of the local borrower submitted a list of regular inspection results to D around October 2014, the permission for the operation of business was revoked because they failed to submit it to the competent authority (State). The victim did not pay installments from November 2014 on this ground.
On May 2015, the Defendant, through F, was a D employee, for the reason that the victimized person did not pay the above installment, was using the H road located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G in front of May 2015, by arbitrarily towing the above tourist bus parked therein without the consent of the victimized person, thereby hindering the injured person’s legitimate exercise of rights to the above tourist bus.
2. Determination
A. Since the tourism bus of this case that the defendant was placed in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the ownership registration is completed in the name of the representative director, it cannot be viewed as the defendant's ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2413, Jun. 26, 1984). However, in case where the representative director of a corporation takes the company's goods in possession of another person as the act of performing his duties based on the representative director's status, the above act is regarded as the act as the representative director's act, and in this case, the company's goods should also be regarded as "self-goods" in the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1170, Jan. 21, 1992). Therefore, it is questionable whether or not the defendant took the tourism bus of this case
B. The defendant is the representative director, and the defendant is the representative director.