The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, sold the instant car to C, and C was to pay the balance of installment loans to the victim, and C did not pay the balance of the promise properly.

At present, monetary relationship with C is well resolved and the car in this case can be returned to the victim at any time.

The Defendant did not conceal the instant car and did not have any intention to conceal the instant car.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, interference with the exercise of rights by the relevant legal doctrine is established by the act of using, concealing, or destroying special media records, such as one’s own goods or electronic records, which are the object of possession or rights of another person.

In this context, “ciding” means impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the whereabouts of oneself, etc. which are the object of another person’s possession or right. If the exercise of right is likely to be hindered, interference with the exercise of right is established, and the exercise of right is not required to be interfered with in reality (Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2230 Decided May 17, 2017). Meanwhile, in the case of interference with the exercise of right, there is sufficient awareness that the intention is one’s own property that is the object of another person’s possession or right, and that it interferes with the exercise of right by taking, concealing, or destroying it, and there is sufficient negligence.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court can sufficiently recognize that the Defendant concealed the instant vehicle in a situation where it is considerably difficult to locate the location of the instant vehicle, and that there was an intentional concealment of the Defendant.

....