The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misconception of the facts, the Defendant did not deliver D's LPG vehicles (hereinafter "the instant vehicle") to E for the purpose of exchanging with other LPG vehicles, as stated in the facts charged, but delivered the instant vehicle to E, a used vehicle with the intention of repaying loans to the victim, with a view to requesting a judgment on the sales proceeds of the vehicle.

In addition, the Defendant is merely temporarily delivering the instant vehicle to identify the sales proceeds of used cars, and there was no criminal intent to obstruct the exercise of rights, and it cannot be said to be “discepting”.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with the exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine is established by the act of interference with the exercise of rights by taking, concealing, or destroying a special media record, such as its own goods or electronic records, which are the object

In this context, “ciding” means impossible or considerably difficult conditions to detect the location of one’s own goods, etc. which are the object of another’s possession or right. If the exercise of right is likely to be obstructed, interference with the exercise of right is established and the exercise of right is interfered with in reality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1439, Sept. 27, 1994; 2016Do13734, Nov. 10, 2016). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant concealed the instant vehicle that was the object of the victim’s right by delivering the instant vehicle that was established by the Defendant to E for exchange with another vehicle that was the object of the victim’s right, thereby hindering the victim’s exercise of right.