The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant received the instant vehicle from B as collateral for the loan; and (b) the Defendant did not specifically agree on the due date, time of payment, and method of securing the performance of the obligation; (c) the Defendant did not make efforts to secure the performance of the obligation to B until one year has passed after the vehicle was transferred; and (d) the Defendant was not aware of the contact address of B; and (c)

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence against the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) under Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act, the lower court recognized the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (b) the Defendant only possesses B’s certificate of personal seal impression issued on August 24, 2012, and the copy of B’s identification card (20% per annum in case of debtor: principal: 12 million won; 20% per annum); (b) the registered owner of the instant vehicle borrowed KRW 10 million from telephone call with the investigative agency to the Non-resident, and sent the instant vehicle as collateral; and (c) the Defendant was present at the investigative agency to return the instant vehicle to the Defendant as collateral; and (d) the Defendant was unable to conduct an investigation into B in the course of investigation; and (e) the Defendant was present at the investigation agency to the extent that it became sufficient for the instant vehicle to reach the Defendant’s level; and (e) the Defendant did not return the instant vehicle as collateral.

Considering the fact that the defendant made a statement, the defendant was operated while keeping the instant vehicle in order to secure the loan claims against B.