2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The fact that the Defendant purchased and acquired the instant vehicle as indicated in the facts charged, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, is sufficiently recognized. 2) Even if the Defendant was not to purchase the instant vehicle, but to acquire it as a collateral, the “acquisition” under Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act should also be deemed to fall under the case where a de facto control is acquired by leasing money as the Defendant and operating a motor vehicle transferred as collateral

B. Determination 1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for a determination of mistake of facts is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be judged as the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). In the instant case, the health account of the defendant, the circumstance that the defendant contributed to nine million won and used the instant vehicle after delivery of the instant vehicle, the circumstance that the defendant was transferred the instant vehicle, and the fact that the registered name of the instant vehicle was in front of the automobile trading company, not H, claiming that the defendant is the other party to the instant automobile transfer contract.