The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant entered into an installment financing contract under the terms of KRW 2 million for each vehicle, 3,00,000,000,000 per vehicle price of KRW 2.5 million per vehicle within the C New Sticking Point located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and KRW 4,000,000 for each bond, around April 20, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant established a mortgage on each bond price of KRW 4,00,000 for each bond and KRW 4,00,000 for each bond.

around April 2015, the Defendant borrowed 3 million won from H, which operated Genekya in Seoul, as collateral, to borrow 3 million won for the said vehicles, and delivered the said vehicles to H, and did not pay 5487,241 won for the remainder of the principal and interest of the loans until August 2015, the Defendant, without notifying the victim, transferred the said vehicles to defective winners, thereby making their whereabouts unknown.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the vehicle owned by the defendant, which is the object of the victim's rights, and obstructed the victim's exercise of rights.

2. The lower court’s judgment: (a) explained the specific facts and circumstances in the part regarding “2. Judgment; and (b) in light of this, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant transferred the said vehicles to a person who was not aware of his name and caused him to be unknown; and (c) determined that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and that the Defendant was acquitted.

3. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim is also required to submit the written indictment to the victim, even if the Defendant transferred the above vehicles through H as stated in the above facts charged, to his name in order to make his/her whereabouts unknown.