All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of fraud among the facts charged against Defendant B on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act concerning the grounds for the appeal by the public prosecutor shall have the effect of acquisition, loss, and transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle.

Article 12 (1) of the same Act provides that "A person who acquires a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle with the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "where a person who has acquired a motor vehicle intends to transfer it again to a third party, he/she shall make a transfer registration under paragraph (1) in his/her name before transferring it.

"........"

In addition, Article 80 Subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “a person who transfers a vehicle to a third party without registering the transfer in his/her name in violation of Article 12(3)” shall be punished.

In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions, the term “person who has acquired an automobile” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act refers to a person who acquires the ownership of an automobile by legal acts, including sale and purchase or donation.

Therefore, even if the obligee was delivered the vehicle owned by the obligee from the obligor, if it is merely the delivery of the vehicle as security of the claim without the agreement on the transfer of ownership, or if the obligee was delegated the authority to dispose of the vehicle instead of the vehicle in order to meet the claim, such obligee cannot be deemed to be “the transferee of the vehicle” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the Automobile Management Act against Defendant C.