The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant borrowed the instant car to J, which was not returned from J, was merely merely a failure to recover the said car from the wind that the Defendant was detained, and there was no fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s exercise of rights by means of “curing”.

On a different premise, the lower court found the Defendant guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment with the purport that “The portion of the charges against the Defendant, in the first instance, received cash of KRW 1,000,000, and sold in cash to F,” which read “The court received cash of KRW 1,000,000, and lent to the J,” and the subject of this court’s permission was changed, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of right under Article 323 of the Criminal Act is established by interference with another’s exercise of right by taking, concealing, or destroying, a special media record, such as one’s own property or electronic records, which is the object

Here, “discepting” means impossible or considerably difficult to detect the whereabouts of oneself, etc. which are the object of possession or right of another person, and if the exercise of right is likely to be hindered, it does not require that the obstruction of exercise of right is established and that the exercise of right has been interfered with in reality.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2230 Decided May 17, 2017). B.