The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below found the defendant guilty of concealing property, which is an ancillary charge, and found the defendant not guilty of embezzlement, which is the primary charge.

In this regard, only the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal portion on the grounds. Therefore, the aforementioned acquittal portion may be transferred to the trial in accordance with the principle of no appeal, but it has already been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below shall be followed with respect to the acquittal portion of the above reasons, and it shall not be judged separately.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been made by the Defendant to possess the instant motor vehicle in a remote opportunity with a claim against C, and the said motor vehicle was aware that it was owned by C and was not immediately returned to the victim to recover the claim, but did not have any intention to conceal the said motor vehicle.

The place where the instant vehicle was parked is a road with many traffic of people, and the Defendant returned the key to the vehicle first to the employee of the victim, and thus, the said vehicle was not concealed.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the allegation that there was no intention to conceal one’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as above in the lower court.

The court below held that the intention of the crime of destroying and damaging property is in violation of all or part of the utility value of other person's property, and it is sufficient to dolusent intent. The defendant confirmed the registration certificate and knew that the motor vehicle in this case was owned by the victim for more than four months.