The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant could sufficiently be found to have committed a theft against the victim's will.

2. The grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the part of the facts charged in this case against the defendant as stated in the annexed indictment, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the revised facts charged are included in the facts that were subject to the judgment of the court below, and thus, the prosecutor's mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles still are subject to the judgment of the court. Therefore, the revised facts charged together with the prosecutor's

3. The modified facts charged and the judgment thereof

A. As to the facts charged as stated in the Attachment of the facts charged

B. 1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the fact that the Defendant brought the instant vehicle without permission against the victim’s will can be sufficiently recognized.

A) The Defendant had already known that G borrowed money as security for the instant vehicle, and transferred the instant vehicle to the towing vehicle upon L’s request.

A vehicle registration certificate presented to K with the vehicle in this case was entered as a new card company by the owner.

B) K has "containers" as to the circumstances in which the Defendant brought the instant vehicle in the trial.