The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the facts that the Defendant acquired the instant car from F.

2. The lower court determined: (a) the Defendant consistently stated that the instant vehicle from the police to the lower court’s court, not the vehicle purchased by the Defendant from F, but the vehicle transferred for the purpose of carrying the vehicle temporarily from F to the time when the Defendant intended to purchase from F until F delivers the vehicle for the purpose of carrying the vehicle temporarily; (b) the Defendant was from the police to the police in March 2013 to April 2008; and (c) the Defendant was able to have a vehicle for the e-mail in 2008; (b) the Defendant was also able to find out the e-mail vehicle; (c) the Defendant could not seek a vehicle for the e-mail; (d) the instant vehicle was stated to mean that the Defendant was unable to return the vehicle later on the grounds that the Defendant was no other vehicle on the part of the Defendant around January 2014; and (c) the Defendant concluded a sales contract with F and paid an amount equivalent

The circumstances that an automobile registration certificate was found in the instant vehicle or that the Defendant received the instant vehicle from F, and the same year from February 10, 2014 after the Defendant received the instant vehicle from F.

4. In full view of the fact that there was no contact between the Defendant and F until around 30, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant acquired the instant vehicle from F by transfer from F, the lower court determined that the Defendant was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired the instant vehicle from F. In addition, the instant vehicle was subject to eight attachment registration following the disposition on default, etc. on a fine for negligence, and the mortgage covering KRW 42 million with creditors capital Co., Ltd. and maximum debt amount of KRW 42 million was established. However, even though the Defendant paid KRW 24 million, the instant vehicle was subject to a disposition on default, and there was no reason to acquire the instant vehicle, for which the collateral security was established.