The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s salary, the purchase and sale purpose of the instant vehicle, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant, which did not recognize it.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant could not be found guilty of the crime of obstruction of another’s exercise of rights by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant paid a loan even after transferring the instant vehicle to E; (b) the F and E filed a lawsuit to accept the procedure for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle; and (c) E was subject to criminal punishment for illegal export of the motor vehicle; and (d) the details of the judgment do not include the instant vehicle.

3. 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, his/her own goods or special media records such as electronic records, which are the object of another’

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 interference with exercise of right should be established and that the exercise of right has been interfered with actually.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant transferred the instant vehicle to the Defendant, thereby causing the likelihood of obstructing the exercise of rights by the victim, as it was impossible or considerably difficult to discover the location of the instant vehicle, and also causing interference with the exercise of rights by the Defendant. In so doing, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant vehicle was transferred to the Defendant, thereby obstructing the exercise of rights.