[1] Ownership of the so-called nominal trust motor vehicle

[2] In a case where the defendant donated a motor vehicle registered in his name to Gap who was de facto in a de facto marital relationship, and only Gap operated and managed it, and agreed to own it under the pretext of division of property or consolation money, and the defendant arbitrarily driven it, the case affirming the judgment below that recognized larceny on the ground that the defendant and Gap should be deemed as the owner regardless of the registration name of the motor vehicle

[1] Article 329 of the Criminal Code, Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act / [2] Article 329 of the Criminal Code, Article 6 of the Automobile Management Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5767 Decided May 30, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1487), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4498 Decided January 11, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 317), Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11771 Decided April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 943)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012No1873 Decided November 15, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to automobile ownership relations

In principle, acquisition and loss of the ownership of an automobile shall have its effect by registering it, and unless it is registered, it shall not be acquired in the external relationship between the parties, as well as in the internal relationship between the parties. However, in special circumstances where the parties agree to hold ownership by a person who is not the registered titleholder, a person who is not the registered titleholder shall hold ownership in the internal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu18641, Sept. 12, 1989; 2000Do5767, May 30, 2003).

The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) as to the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant stolen the instant car, which was registered in the name of the Defendant but was occupied and managed by the victim, by arbitrarily driving the said car; (b) since the Defendant donated the instant car to the victim in a de facto marital relationship with the victim, only the victim was operating and managing the instant car; and (c) the Defendant and the victim decided to own the instant car as property division or consolation money; and (d) determined that the instant car constitutes larceny on the ground that the Defendant and the victim ought to be deemed as the owner regardless of the registered name.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on automobile ownership, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is permitted only for a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced. Thus, in this case where the defendant is sentenced to a fine, the argument that the determination of the sentence by the court below is unfair

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)