The defendant shall be innocent.

On September 30, 2011, the Defendant leased the charge by setting the deposit deposit of KRW 130 million to D, Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant owned, and the term of the contract on September 29, 2013.

However, during the term of the above contract, the Defendant out of the above house on the ground that D, a lessee, had left the house and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a claim for the return of deposit, changed the password of the above house entrance, and requested the Defendant to inform the Defendant of the entrance password to exercise his/her right to the above house during the remaining lease period on July 4, 2012.

After all, the defendant suffered the above house leased from the defendant, thereby hindering the victim's exercise of rights.

Judgment

In relation to obstruction of exercise of rights under Article 323 of the Criminal Act, the term "taking" means moving an object of another person's possession or right from his control to his own or a third party's control against the intention of the possessor, and in cases where the possession is transferred by the intention of the possessor or his defective intention, the taking cannot be deemed to fall under the taking of possession.

(Supreme Court Decision 87Do1952 Decided February 23, 1988). The record reveals that D, after entering into a lease agreement with the Defendant, notified D of the termination of the lease agreement on the ground of the defect in the instant house on November 14, 201, and the fact that D removed the instant house from the instant house on June 25, 201 and delivered the instant house to the Defendant is recognized.

Therefore, since the possession of the instant house was transferred to the defendant on June 25, 2012 by the intention of D, which is the possessor, around June 25, 2012, even if the defendant was unable to occupy the instant house again due to the change in the password, the defendant cannot be deemed to have occupied the instant house.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case do not constitute a crime.