Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In principle, acquisition and loss of ownership of a related legal motor vehicle shall become effective by registering its acquisition and loss, and unless there is a registration, it shall not be acquired by ownership in the external relationship between the parties, as well as in the internal relationship between the parties. However, in special circumstances such as where the parties agree to hold ownership by a person who is not the title holder of the registration, a person who is not the title holder of the registration

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15303, Feb. 28, 2013). (B)

Judgment

1) As in the instant case, inasmuch as there is no objective evidence (materials) such as a contract prepared in relation to the existence of an agreement to retain the instant vehicle in the internal relationship between the Defendant and the victim at the time of purchasing the instant vehicle in the name of the Defendant, the following should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the developments leading up to the purchase of the instant vehicle; (b) the details leading up to the agreement between the said parties to bear the monthly installments and insurance premiums, etc. corresponding to the purchase price of the instant vehicle at that time; (c) the actual use of the instant vehicle; (d) the management entity; and (e) the existence of the return agreement to the registered titleholder (defendant); and (e) the pertinent conditions.