A. On November 24, 2010, from around 22:00 to around 23:30 on November 24, 2010, Defendant A: (a) driven one H rocketing car with the market price of KRW 15 million owned by the victim G (E) parked in the front of the Fela car in the ethy E, which had a vehicle kid on the street, from around 22:00 to November 23:30, 2010, and stolen it.

B. On July 2012, the Defendant acquired stolens by way of exchanging the said vehicle with 1.5 million won owned by the Defendant, even though he was aware that the said Hasta vehicle, which was stolen and kept by the said A, within the EFC parking lot located in TFC located in TFC at the end of the end of the time, at the end of the end of the year, was aware that it was a stolen object.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial against Defendant A lies on the prosecutor, and the acknowledgement of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to have the judge prove that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). The method of purchase of the instant vehicle asserted by the Defendant is highly doubtful that the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle at the end of time in light of general vehicle transaction practices, etc.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, that there is no record on witness or CCTV images of the Defendant who stolen the instant vehicle, the Defendant may have purchased the said vehicle from the thief of the instant vehicle, and all other circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant was an initial offender who has no criminal record, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is sufficient.