The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 18, 201, the Defendant: (a) purchased one automobile of KRW 57,000,000 from the victim Yangyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan from the victim for KRW 1,902,695 per month; and (b) set up a mortgage on the said vehicle at KRW 57,00,000,000, with the amount of the credit as the mortgagee, the Defendant as the debtor, the obligor, and the amount of the claim at KRW 57,00,00.

Nevertheless, the Defendant paid KRW 5,990,000 by March 7, 2012 and did not pay the remainder of the installments, and obstructed the Defendant’s exercise of rights by concealing the said vehicle, which became the object of a mortgage, to the obligee C, by transferring it to the obligee of the Defendant, as seen above, around April 2012.

2. The crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by obstructing another’s exercise of right by taking, concealing, or destroying “self-owned goods” which are the object of another’s possession or right. Thus, if the taken, concealed, or damaged goods are not “self-owned goods,” there is no room to establish a crime of obstruction

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5064 Decided February 25, 2010). According to the register of automobiles, the registered titleholder of the instant truck at the time of committing a crime indicated in the facts charged is recognized to have been seen as having not been registered as the owner, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is the owner of the instant truck, notwithstanding the entry in the register of automobiles.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325