If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Around April 23, 2007, the Defendant: (a) donated a DSS5 car registered in the name of the Defendant to the victim C who was in a de facto marital relationship; and (b) around March 25, 2009, the said SMF5 car was separated from the victim and continued to possess the said MF5 car by having the victim own it.

However, the defendant, however, had the victim failed to pay the installments of the above SM5 car and not transferred the registered name to the victim, and had the key business operator in his name around March 30, 2010, and had arbitrarily driven the D car that the victim parked in the e apartment 107, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, managed as the owner.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen a passenger car owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to C

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In principle, the acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle by a defendant who is a registered owner of a motor vehicle becomes effective by registering his/her acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle, barring such registration, and cannot acquire ownership in relation to the party’s internal relationship as well as in the absence of such registration. However, in cases where there are special circumstances, such as where the parties agree to hold ownership between the persons who are not the registered owner, an internal relationship shall be owned by a person who is not the registered owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4498, Jan. 11, 2007) by an internal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4498, Jan. 11, 2007). In full view of the evidence duly