The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The possessor of the bus in this case, which is the main point of the grounds for appeal, is reasonable to regard it as the damaged association, and therefore, the defendant constitutes a obstruction of exercising his rights.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. The lower court determined: (1) If the enforcement officer had a third party keep an automobile in custody in compliance with the court’s order for delivery of the automobile, and completed the enforcement by indicating that the automobile is under the possession of the enforcement officer upon delegation by the auction creditor, through the preparation of the execution protocol and the attachment of a public notice, etc., of the execution protocol, the said vehicle was transferred to the “execution officer” pursuant to Articles 191 and 189(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

It should be seen that the third party who actually keeps the same in custody according to the delegation is limited to the possession assistant, and ② in the automobile execution, when there is a person having the right of retention, the automobile cannot be forced from them, and thus, it cannot be forced execution unless he voluntarily submits the automobile to the execution officer. If the person having the right of retention voluntarily submits the automobile to the execution officer, it is reasonable to view that the person having the right of retention waives the benefit of redemption of the claim claiming the effect of retention, and ③ therefore, the creditor had already occupied the automobile by asserting the security right, such

Even if the execution of an execution officer based on an order to deliver a motor vehicle was actually completed, it is reasonable to view that the existing creditor (the possessor) would lose his possession by acquiring the said motor vehicle. (4) According to this case in this case, as seen earlier, as long as the execution of the instant bus was executed by an execution officer of the Daegu District Court on April 7, 2016 pursuant to the "Order to Deliver a Motor Vehicle before filing a request for auction," which was issued by the injured association, as seen in the above, the bus of this case was actually executed.