The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as the penalty (one million won of a fine) declared by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued.

2. In full view of all the circumstances of the instant crime including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., when the Defendant continued to impose a fine for negligence due to the operation of a vehicle, and there are other circumstances to be considered in the instant crime, and all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings, such as the record and oral argument, it cannot be deemed unfair that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible (the Defendant asserts that the possession by the victim is not an occupation protected by the obstruction of the exercise of rights, and thus, it is not unreasonable for another person to be occupied in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act refers to the possession by the title, i.e., the possession by the legitimate cause, and the possession by the thief who does not have the right to possess the said object. However, in light of the legal principles as seen above, it does not necessarily mean the possession by the court below’s decision that the possession by the obstruction of the exercise of rights does not necessarily mean the existence or absence of legal title after the commencement of title.