The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On April 30, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was delivered by the representative G of the instant E, on the condition that the Defendant succeeded to the lessee’s status and used the Franchising car owned by the farming association corporation E in Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant automobile”) without obtaining the consent of the victimized company from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant automobile”) in D’s management of the Defendant located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, 2010, on the condition that the Defendant is

Since then, the Defendant did not follow the procedures to succeed to the status of the lessee for the foregoing leased vehicle and delivered the foregoing leased vehicle to H, the creditor of the Defendant, at his discretion, on June 201, on behalf of the performance of the obligation.

The Defendant transferred the stolen goods to H by delivering the passenger car owned by the victim that G embezzled as above.

2. Whether the Defendant was aware of the fact at the time of the delivery of the instant vehicle from G

(a) In the crime of acquiring stolens, the perception of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the extent of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous;

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904 Delivered on December 9, 2004).

Therefore, as to whether the Defendant recognized that the instant automobile was stolen at the time of receiving the instant vehicle from G, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, G, around April 30, 2010, he/she embezzled the instant automobile owned by the victimized Company by delivering the instant automobile to the Defendant on April 31, 2012 (Cheongju District Court Decision 201Da701 decided Sept. 8, 2012). The said judgment became final and conclusive on September 8, 2012. At the time of the Defendant’s delivery of the instant automobile from G, G was well aware that the instant automobile was owned by the victimized Company and that G was merely leased.