The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The non-existence of a crime obstructing the exercise of rights is a means for the victimized company to charge Lproco-cars (hereinafter “pro rata car”), and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to interfere with the exercise of rights on the ground that the injured company only possesses its Fprop car (hereinafter “prop car”) by means of claiming the cost of its Lprop car.

B. The victim's consent was the victim's consent because the victim company's consent brought the victim's car to the defendant. Thus, the victim's consent was given.

(c)

In comparison with the exercise of the right, a set car is only kept by the victim for free repair, but is not the object of the victim's right.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that there was no intention to interfere with the exercise of the right, the defendant's arbitrary possession of the so-called so-called so-called so-called "motor vehicle" can be acknowledged as having brought about a so-called so-called "motor vehicle," while the defendant did not consult with the damaged company about the issue of compensation for damages for the so-called so-called "motor vehicle," which caused an accident of being driven by borrowing

The possession of another person subject to protection in the obstruction of the exercise of rights does not necessarily mean possession based on the right to possess. On the other hand, it does not necessarily mean possession based on a legitimate title, but it includes possession where possession has been lost after the commencement of possession, possession until the existence of the right has been clarified through the legal procedure, possession based on the right has not been commenced through the legal procedure, or possession that can be asserted as a simultaneous performance defense, etc., and it includes all of the values of provisional protection until the resolution of dispute through the legal procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4455, Mar. 23, 2006).