The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant possessed the automobile of this case with the delivery of the automobile of this case from the land owner as a bond security.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the nature of an article, the facts constituting a subjective element of a crime are bound to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the article, and in such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent should be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, dolusent intent as a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime must be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime should be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of a crime based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act performed outside and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8750, Nov. 10, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court are the following.