The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as a security for the borrowed money, delivered the F-learning passenger car to the party under whose name the automobiles

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable in light of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence conducted by the time the argument in the appellate trial is concluded, the appellate court should respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). B.

The evidence conforming to the facts charged in the instant case is a court statement and a written statement of February 28, 2014, which presented to the investigation agency and the court statement of February 28, 2014, to the effect that the Defendant confessions the facts charged on the date of the first trial of the first trial of the first instance. ① In the case of the statement of H in the court and investigation agency of the first instance of the first instance of the first instance of the first instance of the first instance of the first instance of the first instance, the first instance court directly finished the investigation by undergoing the examination procedure of the witness examination of H, and determined that H’s statement

(2) In the case of the Defendant’s statement on the date of the first trial of the first instance, H’s offering of a loan by taking the actual vehicle as security under the first instance court’s statement is inconsistent with objective circumstances, and the Defendant arbitrarily disposes of the vehicle, and then changed the time for the Defendant to resolve the dispute.