The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant provided dump truck of this case as security but he knows personal information, such as the name and address of the other party; the defendant transferred possession of dump truck without preparing any specific measures to recover the dump truck of this case; the agreement between the defendant and the victim provided that a voluntary disposition, such as transfer, lease, etc. of dump truck of security, or a security right, pledge, or mortgage cannot be established until the defendant fully pays the loan. Since the defendant could not properly pay 20 million won from his name, it is possible for the defendant to exercise the security right to the dump truck of this case by using his name, the defendant could not exercise the right of dump truck of this case. In light of the fact that it was possible for him to exercise the right of dump truck of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant of this case by providing dump truck of this case with an intention to lose the value of the dump truck of this case, which affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On June 20, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant purchased dump trucks under the Defendant’s Defendant’s wife D, and took out a loan of 197,900,000 funds for the purchase of vehicles from the two dump Capitals Co., Ltd. on June 27, 2012 to cover the purchase price for the vehicle, and registered a mortgage creation for a dump truck with the mortgage amounting to KRW 197,90,000 for the mortgage amounting to KRW 197,90,000. As such, the duty to keep dump trucks until the repayment of the loan was made.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s name was KRW 20,000,000 from a person whose name was unknown on June 3, 2014.