The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although it can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant committed the theft of the vehicle. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the police interrogation protocol and the protocol of statement of statement of the Defendant, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the police interrogation protocol and the protocol of statement of the police officer G are inadmissible, and that the Defendant consenteds to bring the Defendant a car in accordance with the statement I and G in the protocol of the trial, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant guilty, and there is no other evidence

C. The court below made a statement in accordance with the defendant's defense suit to the effect that "The victim's statement in the court of the trial of the witness I, part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against G, and each statement in the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant against G, i.e., the following circumstances that can be acknowledged: ① the vice president of the F F, operated by the victim, took the vehicle of this case from the defendant at the police around September 2009, and later came to know from another person that he stolen the vehicle of this case from F, and later, the defendant came to know that he stolen the vehicle of this case from F," and in the court of the court of the court below and the trial of the party, "The victim decided to transfer to the defendant things that are not secured by the bank among those owned by the defendant for the repayment of the defendant's obligation." The statements in the court below of the court below and the court of the party court of the trial are completely different from the statements in the police, as well as important statements related to the charge of larceny.