2. Determination

A. According to the records and arguments of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Around July 2011, G living with the Defendant provided a loan consultation with H in order to raise its own business funds, etc., and at the time, H did not fall under the credit loan requirements between the Defendant and G. However, if the Defendant and G purchased two vehicles using two units of vehicles, he/she may provide a loan of KRW 16 million to the Defendant, etc. on the condition that the vehicle is kept as collateral. Accordingly, the Defendant and G agreed to purchase the instant vehicle under the Defendant’s name through H through H and borrowed money. 2) At the time, H would purchase the vehicle through a capital company introduced by him/her to the Defendant, and thereafter, H’s employees concluded the instant loan agreement equivalent to the cost of the vehicle at the same time with the Defendant, along with E and Hyundai Capital’s employees seen as the victim’s employees, and concluded the instant loan agreement with the Defendant to purchase the vehicle by borrowing KRW 16 million and installment.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant borrowed KRW 26 million, which is equivalent to the purchase price of the instant vehicle from the victim, and KRW 20,40,000,000, which is equivalent to the purchase price of another vehicle from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. 4) However, H kept the instant vehicle, etc. owned by the Defendant as collateral, and arbitrarily disposed of the instant vehicle, etc. from the vehicle siren around August 201. G and the Defendant, who was unaware of such fact, did not know, around October 19, 201, to H, the sum of the borrowed money and its interest.