The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the summary of the facts charged in this case’s judgment of the court below are operated by the defendant for the automobile sale. The defendant was delivered with the victim’s Emp vehicle owned by the victim’s “Drenk” on October 2009 with rent of KRW 800,000 per month, but refused to return the above vehicle without any justifiable reason. The court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the statements and statements in the investigation agency of C and F and there are no other evidence to prove that the defendant refused to return the vehicle without any justifiable reason.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: C/F’s statement to the investigative agency that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is highly reliable.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the statement in the investigation agency of C and F for various reasons that make it difficult to understand, and sentenced the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the defendant's partial trial statement, witness F and C's each trial statement. In other words, ① there is no objective evidence, such as a lease agreement, which is acknowledged that C who managed the window-som vehicle in this case leased the above vehicle to the defendant under the condition that C is paid monthly rent, but the defendant's assertion that C purchased the above window-som vehicle from C is the same, and ② C is the vice president of H who operated D siren.