자동차관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: although the Defendant operated the vehicle without being directly entrusted with the operation of the said vehicle from D by a person who owns Cenz S50 vehicles (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) on the original register of automobile registration, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case; the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On February 13, 2015, the lower court: F (a) made an agreement with the actual owner of the instant vehicle to the effect that, on May 13, 2015, interest of KRW 10 million per month from E; and (b) on May 13, 2015, if the principal and interest of the instant vehicle are not repaid within the due date as collateral, the Defendant provided the said vehicle with the foregoing vehicle as collateral; (c) did not pay interest once more than 0 minutes after the first payment of the principal and interest of the instant vehicle; and (d) was unable to repay the principal and interest of the instant vehicle by 0 months until May 13, 2015; and (e) did not sell the instant vehicle to F after demanding payment of the principal and interest of the instant vehicle several times; and (e) did not transfer the instant vehicle to the Defendant under the provisions of the Act, including the amount of the instant vehicle to be redeemed at KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won after delivery of the instant vehicle as collateral.