beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the embezzlement of the victim D among the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant purchased the vehicle in the name of the victim and paid the vehicle in installments for a long time after purchasing the vehicle from the victim, so the above vehicle owner at the time of the crime in this case is not the victim but the defendant at the time of the crime in this case, and thus, the court below convicted the above facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s act of offering the instant vehicle as security without permission constituted embezzlement, in view of the following: (a) according to the relevant evidence, such as the victim’s legal statement, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.
2) A party’s acquisition and loss of the ownership of a motor vehicle becomes effective by registering the acquisition and loss of the ownership of the motor vehicle, and, in principle, it is not possible to acquire ownership in a party’s internal relationship as well as in the external relationship, barring such registration. However, in a case where there are special circumstances, such as where the parties agree to hold ownership between the parties who are not the registered owner, an internal relationship shall be held by a person who is not the registered owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4498, Jan. 11, 2007, etc.). However, under the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant purchased the motor vehicle in this case under the name of the victim with the consent of the victim due to bad credit standing. In the process, the defendant who was a newly established owner purchased the motor vehicle under the victim’s name.