On October 2009, the Defendant: (a) provided that the Defendant would pay KRW 800,000 per month for the rent for an influent rent, and (b) received the victim’s “Drenk” vehicle from the Defendant, but rejected the return of the said vehicle without any justifiable reason.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as the Defendant purchased the said window vehicle from C and did not rent it, the charge cannot be recognized.

The part of the defendant's statement in the statement about C and F denies its contents in this court. As such, the defendant's statement in the police statement about C and F is inadmissible. Among the second interrogation protocol about the defendant, C's statement in the suspect examination protocol about C and C's statement in the second interrogation protocol about the defendant, the following circumstances are as follows: ① there is no lease agreement which can be acknowledged that C who managed the above window stom vehicle leased the above vehicle to the defendant under the condition that C would pay monthly rent. Since October 2009, C did not receive the above rent from about 17 months before the complaint of this case, it seems that C did not raise any objection. ② It is difficult to see that there is a pro-friendly relationship between the defendant and C to allow the payment of rent over a long period as above, ③ there is no consistency with C's statement about the above rent amount, ③ there is no difference between C and its partner's statement about the above amount and rent amount, ④ there is no difference between C and C's statement about the above vehicle's transfer to CF.