The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the facts charged are fully convicted.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from May 16, 2013 to May 21, 2013, lent and used the Crenk Do motor vehicle owned by Crenk (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and operated the registration license plate by making it difficult to distinguish the registration license plate by using a white tape.

B. The lower court held that E’s legal statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged by the Defendant that he had affixed a tape is inadmissible or believed for the following reasons, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and thus, acquitted the Defendant. A) Of the E’s statement, the part on which the Defendant’s statement was made can be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that it was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant’s statement was made under such circumstances. (B) As a result of the inquiry into the details of the call call regarding E and the Defendant’s mobile phone, it is difficult to believe that the content of the investigation report made after the phone conversations with the police and the contents of the telephone conversation made by E conflict with the Defendant on June 11, 2013.

C. According to the purport of the substantial direct examination principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, in order for the appellate court to reverse the first instance court’s judgment denying the credibility of the witness statement of the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment, in principle, is clearly erroneous, or when compiling the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted in the appellate court.