Defendant

H and Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant D is dismissed in entirety.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor (Defendant D) 1) In fact-finding, the Defendant, even a specialized credit service provider, is a high-priced O Pesta 488 vehicle (hereinafter “instant Pesta”).

(2) Although it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not recognize that the Defendant was stolen, the lower court did not recognize that the Defendant was stolen, and determined that the amount of damage from unfair sentencing was large; (2) removed GPS installed on a motor vehicle to avoid tracking immediately after the Defendant was offered as security; and (3) operated credit business without registration of credit business, when considering the fact that the Defendant was engaged in credit business without registration, etc., the lower court’s punishment (fine 2 million) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant H (Definite) merely introduced AS by finding a usual trust G and requiring a common financing system, and providing a branch person’s vehicle as security, and there was no ordinary wage agreement to receive if illegal security was offered.

Therefore, it was recognized that APWS AMG vehicles (hereinafter “instant benz”) are stolen.

There was no intention of the crime of stolen property due to the lack of recognition or possibility.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. In determining the assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part) it is sufficient to understand the fact that the perception of stolens is stolen, and it is not necessary to specifically identify the principal offender’s crime.

The perception of stolen property is not required to be a fixed one, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the extent of being suspected of spreading stolen property, and whether it was known of the stolen property should be recognized in consideration of the identity of the owner of the stolen property, the nature of the stolen property, the transaction cost, and other circumstances.