The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding the fact that he walked a vehicle operation on his own for a locking the air conditioner, (b) she was driving the vehicle on his own; or (c) she was changed to a 'N' to a 'D' due to an intangible action thereafter; and (d) there was no intention to drive the vehicle.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts should be based on evidence of probative value that makes it possible for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term "reasonable doubt" in this article does not refer to any doubt or incompetence, but means a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts that are not compatible with the facts necessary for proof in accordance with logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, suspicion based on conceptual or abstract possibility is not included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013). A judge does not necessarily determine whether there is evidence of criminal facts only as direct evidence, but rather can be determined as having evidence of criminal facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively examining direct evidence and indirect evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1526, Jan. 25, 2017). (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (i) from an employee of E’s agent in the Government DoD of the reported center on July 4, 2017, “the parking lot was released by the government, and the driver was assigned to the police station,” and (ii) the police team affiliated with the police station at the time the police station was called to the scene.